Corrupters Of The Constitution

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on SB 1070, Arizona’s immigration law and Obamacare I thought it good to repost my syndicated column from July 19, 2011. I can’t say it any better today than I did then:

Tragically, for a lot of people, Independence Day is/was a Will Smith big-budget movie, a case or two of beer, hot dogs, hamburgers and a picnic. But it’s so much more than that to those of us who know the factual history of our great nation and those who risked and sacrificed so much to bring our freedom from the crown to fruition.

One of the things I am most proud of, pursuant to our Founding Fathers, was their faith in and recognition of God. It offends me to hear the seditious ignorance of the foolish that fight to remove any and all references to God when, in fact, our Founding Fathers intended for God to be acknowledged and prayers to be offered in conjunction with good government and the observance of federal holidays and the ceremonies adjoining same.

The corrupters of the Constitution would have us believe that our Founding Fathers intended for the Constitution to be changed; they argue that the framers intended it to be a fluid document. And even more Erebusic, they argue that the architects of this nation mandated no mention or observance of God in, on, or around anything having to do with government – all of which are blasphemous lies.

I have long argued that the founders were intelligent, articulate men who were more than capable of saying exactly what they meant. But the corrupters of freedom, believing all wisdom to be embodied in themselves, have argued otherwise – even as to when the Constitution was signed.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin all wrote that they had signed the Constitution July 4, 1776, but there are some historians who argue that they signed a month later. So the question becomes, whom are you going to believe – the men who were there and participated, or PBS and the History Channel?

If the Founding Fathers had intended the First Amendment to mean what the courts have fallaciously and errantly allowed it to be subverted into, they would have specifically written it that way. But in a perverse way, the First Amendment has become exactly what they intended it not to be.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof.” Yet that is exactly what is happening today. School districts are sued and bullied because they dare to hold graduations in a building with a cross on it. The Veterans Administration has ordered chaplains at the funerals of fallen military not to invoke God’s name or to make any reference to Him at the funerals. Children are forbidden to wear T-shirts to school with the name of Christ on them. Military cadets are forbidden to offer prayers of thanks for their meals in their cafeterias – even knowing that they may sacrifice their lives in service to their country. The prohibition of religion is precisely what is taking place today.

If the Founding Fathers meant no state-sanctioned religion as it is enforced today, why did they reference God so inclusively?

One of the clearest examples showing that the Founding Fathers never intended the First Amendment to be applied as it is today comes from John Adams. The day before he would sign the actual Constitution, Adams wrote a letter to his wife, Abigail. The very first paragraph on the third page of that letter, Adams wrote: “I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding generations, as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by the solemn acts of God Almighty.” And for those who will hasten to say that Adams was just caught up in the euphoria of the moment, one paragraph later, in closing the letter, he wrote: “You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see the end is more than worth all the means. And that Posterity will triumph in that day’s transaction, even [although] we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not.”


That hardly sounds like a man who, along with others, was on his way to sign one of the most important and substantive documents in history. Adams’ words also show he fully understood the gravity of their actions.

And for those who argue that the Constitution was intended to be a fluid document – they’re right, but only within a very strict matrix. The Constitution can be amended, but that involves all of the states’ participation and input. It isn’t done by subversive lawyers and activist courts, which ignore the will and participation of the people.