Today's Pastors have become secularized through their education.
Today's Pastors are scared of IRS and ACLU, thus they have been silenced.
Today's Pastors are more focused on keeping their jobs instead of undertaking the risks that Paul in the Gospel did.
Today's Pastors are more focused on tithing and keeping the congregation subdued.
Consider the following that took place with little public outcry. Conservative talkshow hosts are speaking out more than the pastors.

The solution: People must energize their pastor and become his/her backbone.

In the Supreme court's decision on the "Lawrence v. Texas" case recently, our judges found it a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. This ruling presents a clear threat to traditional marriage and the family. However, there is a solution.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has displayed a defiance approach to the federal court's mandate to remove a Ten Commandments display from the rotunda at the Alabama judicial building has been debated vigorously in recent weeks, mostly out of context. Much of the public debate about this case has taken a wide detour around the substantive constitutional question, instead focusing on the Ten Commandments: Are they the foundation of Western law? Should they be displayed in state and local public places? Are such displays promotions of religion or history? While these are interesting questions, they are not relevant to the substance of this case.
Those content to reduce this case to a colloquy on the merits of the Ten Commandments either do not grasp the serious constitutional issue being contested, or they harbor a disingenuous motive to avoid the relevant. The latter group, well represented in the pop media, has framed this case as an insurrection led by a religious zealot and his gaggle of street preachers, thus depreciating its legal significance in order to avoid substantive and instructive discussion about our Constitution. As The Federalist reported weeks ago, the federal judges, ACLU plaintiffs and Justice Moore all agree that the issue is not the Ten Commandments but the First and, thus, Tenth Amendments, and how these are to be interpreted. U.S. 11th Circuit Court Appellate Judge Ed Carnes, in his denial of Justice Moore's appeal, wrote, "If Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument were allowed to stand, it would mean a massive revision of how the courts have interpreted the First Amendment for years." The ACLU's counsel stated, "This case is not about the Ten Commandments. This case is not about Roy Moore. It is about the First Amendment...." Indeed, Justice Moore wrote, "Have we become so ignorant of our nation's history that we have forgotten the reason for the adoption of the Bill of Rights? It was meant to restrict the federal government's power over the states...." Notwithstanding the fact that the federal courts, the plaintiffs and defendant all declared this case to be about our Constitution, few media pundits and commentators dared venture into its real substance -- much too cerebral, fear they, for the dumbed-down masses who can't distinguish between the First and Tenth Amendment and first-and-ten to go. But in doing so, they are selling out our Founders' courageous legacy, as well as those Patriots who keep the torch burning today. Indeed, the substance of this case solely concerns the rule of law as plainly written by our Founders in the U.S. Constitution, the protection of which is entrusted to the federal judiciary, whom it authorizes by oath to defend it, and its Bill of Rights, as adopted by the several states (including Alabama). The core question raised by this case is whether our Constitution should be altered by amendment (as per original intent), or adulterated by adjudication, which our Founders (as explicated in the Federalist Papers) and the states clearly rejected. The Constitution clearly states that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...." (Article I, Section 1). Conspicuously absent here is any language that allows federal judicial activists to render interpretive rulings that distort the Constitution such that it comports with their political and social agendas. On the subject of judicial activists, the Constitution declares, "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" (Article III, Section 1). In other words, they should be impeached. Unfortunately, as Thomas Jefferson noted, impeachment is "a scarecrow," a straw man.
The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...," and the Tenth Amendment ensures "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."

In the Federalist Papers, the definitive exposition of the Constitution's original intent, James Madison wrote, "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. ... The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Madison, our Constitution's author, meant that the Constitution is to be read and ruled upon constructively, not as a matter of interpretive opinion, which circumvents its prescribed method of amendment. Those are the terms under which the states, including Alabama, ratified the Constitution.
As for the suggestion that the Fourteenth Amendment's "Privileges or Immunities" clause applies the Bill of Rights' restrictions on the central government to all levels of government -- it didn't and it doesn't. That notion was settled by the Supreme Court long ago, though the Fourteenth continues to be dredged up by judicial activists -- the same ones who interpret the First Amendment to read "separation of church and state" -- in an effort to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. It only applies in this case -- in the correct application of the amendment -- in support of Justice Moore's position, in that it bars the state of Alabama, and Moore as its chief judicial officer, from acting on the order handed down from the federal court.
Justice Moore, in his defiance of the federal courts, wrote, "Under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, federal courts have absolutely no power, authority or jurisdiction [in this case]." He is, correctly in our opinion, arguing that he cannot be in disobedience of a judicial order where there is no jurisdiction. Thus, his actions do not rise even to the level of civil disobedience -- just defiance of an unlawful ruling. Of course, this distinction is predicated on respect for the rule of law under our Constitution, not the rule of judges, or what Thomas Jefferson characterized as "the Despotic branch." Justice Moore is currently suspended for his defiance and faces ethics charges before the seven-member Court of the Judiciary. On Tuesday, the Ten Commandments display was removed from the judicial rotunda in Montgomery, to the shrieks of a few eccentric street preachers whose tirade (replayed repeatedly by Leftmedia outlets) served only to discredit the thoughtful objections of millions of Christian Patriots across the nation and further obfuscate the constitutional case being made by Justice Moore. In neighboring Mississippi, Gov. Ron Musgrove (D) called on governors around the nation to put the monument on display in their state capitol buildings -- starting with his. So what's next? A new appeal to the Supreme Court is in the works, while Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, Attorney General Bill Pryor and the eight Associate Justices are busy trying to convince the people of Alabama that they support the Ten Commandments but were bound to obey the rule of law. "Because we are a society of laws, the Alabama Supreme Court has a duty to comply with the federal court order, whether they agree with it or not," said Riley. Indeed, they do -- unless the order is unlawful. Riley did not say how far from the "rule of law" they are willing to let judicial activists stray before adhering to Alabama's state motto, "We Dare Defend our Rights." Perhaps that will be best left to Governor Roy Moore....

A footnote: While The Federalist would not support a constitutional amendment to elect judges to the federal bench, we have outlined in the New Federalist Platform, on our Reagan2020.com website, a plan for dissolving the inferior federal courts after a four- or six-year term on a rotating district basis, and reconstituting them. This would, in effect, term-limit the courts themselves, and thus term-limit the judges serving on those benches. We believe Congress already possesses this power, as Article III, Section 1 refers to "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Of course, resorting to a constitutional amendment might be required....

Quote of the week...
"Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and my fellow justices have argued that they must act to remove the monument to preserve the rule of law. But the precise opposite is true: Article VI of the Constitution makes explicitly clear that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it, are 'the supreme Law of the Land.' Judge Thompson and the judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have all sworn oaths which bind them to support the Constitution as it is written -- not as they would personally prefer it to be written. ... By subjugating the people of Alabama to the unconstitutional edict by Judge Thompson...the attorney general and my colleagues have made the fiat opinion of a judge supreme over the text of the Constitution. ... The First Amendment says that 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed."
-- Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore

This is your last call to sign our open letter in support of Justice Moore's defense of Constitutional Rule of Law, religious liberty and states' rights in this landmark case.
Link to -- http://patriotpetitions.us/openletter
(If you don't have Web access, please send a blank e-mail to: Each e-mail sent to this address will be counted as one signature for the petition.)

On cross-examination...
"To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions every day, I say: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny."
-- Ronald Reagan

Democrats and Liberals are worried that conservatives are winning the battle at the ballot box.
With a $10 Million budget, the American Majority Institute is standing up next month in Washington DC. This organization will be the largest Democratic Party (Liberal) Think Tank.
John Podesta, the former Clinton Chief of Staff, will lead the project and fund raising.
Objective: Draft a more unified message for voters. (meaning, they will add spin to the message)
Considering the fact that many liberals prefer to teach at our college campuses (no QA or monitoring of teaching), the Institute may have a hard time soliciting professionals to write policy papers and columns for the Washington circle.

New York City is $3.5 Billion in debt: However, the City has found $3.2 Million to reconstruct a building to start the nation's first all-gay public high school called Harvey Milk High School. I don't get it!!
There is so much talk on diversity and culturalism, everyone is talking about mainstreaming people, now a wall will be placed around these students. What kind of message is New York City sending?

Where is the Church on this issue? What is it that Pastors and Priests don't get?
I got it -- There is no money to be made on this.

In reference to a survey that the National Republican Congressional Committee mailed to a list of citizens soliciting their opinions on "issues of greatest concern" so that the Republican Party can be strengthened "by getting more Americans involved."

Out of 54 detailed questions sorted into 13 different issues, there is only one question about border security and immigration, and that appears at the bottom of the page under Foreign Affairs. There is a section on Homeland Security, but it contains no mention of border security or immigration.

Below is a list of additional questions whose answers would be more helpful to Party leaders and our President if they so choose to take an interest in the concerns of citizens:

1. Do you favor President Bush's plan to give amnesty to illegal aliens, putting people who violate our laws in line ahead of those who lawfully apply for entry?
2. Do you favor repealing Ted Kennedy's Diversity Visa Lottery, which admits 50,000 aliens per year, mostly from non-Western countries including countries that sponsor terrorism?
3. Should the State Department stop issuing visas in foreign countries that sponsor terrorism?
4. Do you favor closing our borders to illegal aliens, illegal drugs and contagious diseases by whatever means necessary, including electronic fences and National Guard troops?
5. Do you favor requiring visual inspection of the contents of at least 50 percent of trucks coming across our border (instead of the current one to two percent)?
6. Do you favor prohibiting the State Department from negotiating a plan with Mexico to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens?
7. Do you favor repealing the federal requirement that hospitals must give free medical care, including scarce organ transplants, to illegal aliens (an unfunded mandate that is bankrupting many hospitals and increasing the price of medical care to Americans)?
8. Do you favor cutting off federal funding to state universities that give lower in-state tuition to illegal aliens (in violation of current federal law), or that refuse to cooperate with the foreign student tracking system?
9. Will you vote to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens who betray their oath of U.S. citizenship by claiming "dual citizenship" with their native country?
10. Do you favor stopping the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal aliens (since many of the 9/11 hijackers boarded the fatal planes by showing their driver's licenses)?
11. Do you favor penalties on local public officials who refuse to cooperate with immigration officials in identifying illegal aliens?
12. Do you favor prohibiting government agencies from accepting foreign-issued cards (matricula consular) as acceptable I.D.s?
13. Do you favor strict health screening of foreigners entering the U.S. in order to stop the extraordinary rise in cases of tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Chagas, West Nile virus, END (which now threatens the California poultry business), and SARS?
14. Do you favor stopping the racket of smuggling very-pregnant aliens into the United States so they can give birth to their babies in the U.S. (thereby becoming immediately eligible for citizenship and welfare)?
15. Do you favor a time-out on immigration and visas until Homeland Security has a functioning computer system to track all aliens (not U.S. citizens) through smart I.D. cards?
16. Do you favor rescinding Bill Clinton's Executive Order 13166 requiring anyone who receives federal funds (such as doctors and hospitals) to provide their services in foreign languages?
17. Do you favor abolishing federal requirements to provide foreign-language ballots, since the ability to speak, read and write basic English is a requirement to become a naturalized U.S. citizen and only citizens are eligible to vote?
18. Do you favor a general policy of drawing a bright line of difference between U.S. citizens and aliens so that law-abiding American citizens are not treated like potential terrorists or hijackers?
19. Do you favor a Party policy of rejecting political contributions from individuals and corporations that hire illegal aliens?

Is the reason why questions about border security and immigration were omitted from the Republican survey that our leaders don't want to know the answers?

Read this Column online at
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/apr03/03-04-16.shtml

Eagle Forum Website: www.eagleforum.org:
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-462-5415

ACLU - What is their issue?

The ACLU is targeting your faith and family in the following ways:
1. Working to strip the Ten Commandments, and any other faith-based images, from public display in our communities.
2. Attacking student's rights to express their faith openly, even advocating "prayer police" in our schools to monitor religious expression.
3. Undermining the rights of familites in favor of statist solutions.
4. Fighting to eliminate any mention of faith from city seals and mottos, stripping away our religious heritage.
5. Advocating drug legalization.
6. Promoting homosexual marriage and the gay agenda.
7. Advancing abortion rights.
8. Targeting those who oppose its agenda, using the threat of legal action to bully citizens into silence.

Interesting that our nation's Supreme court bans voluntary prayer at school football games while extending constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion (PBA) - a procedure in which infants are almost delivered from their mothers, then their life is taken away with surgical scissors and a suction hose.

All of which forces change to the fabric of our society into one that will cause chaos and increased anxieties.

When will pastors come alive from behind their pulpits into the center of our communities?
When will people come alive from behind their "tolerate all" and "don't mess with my material goods" attitude?

Put your faith in Scripture.
The Bible is God's word, written by men but directed and inspired by God.
It is the complete and only authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
The Bible provides absolute truths.
People provide relative truths.
Thus, you are better off seeking the absolute truth from the Bible.
Read the Bible daily to develop the Holy Spirit within you.

"Security without liberty - it's not an America I would want to live in."
"The greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers rather than from the men and women of law enforcement and national security who seek to defend America and her people against that threat." --- Viet Dinh (worked on the PATRIOT Act for the Justice Department)