Letter to a 2010 Senate Candidate
Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

Dear Candidate (Jim Huffman):

A friend sent me an email (attached below), where he summarized your positions on a number of the issues.  I agree with you on all except your stand on abortion.  In the following essay, I share my philosophy on this subject, and its implication to the larger issues of government and society.

You state that you accept Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.

I do not accept this ruling without objection.  Nor do I accept the other judicial edicts of its type (e.g. Everson v. Board of Education, Abington v. Schempp, Lawrence v. Texas,…).  Each of these Supreme Court decisions has in effect created radically new moral directives without having been established in the body of law by the legislative process.

Roe, et al, are in the family of de facto judicial legislation.  The Left has chosen this tactic to circumvent the will of the people, and to implant new social programs that have fundamentally altered our sense of moral conscience and hence has fundamentally changed (degraded) our national character.  The Court, with its insulation from accountability to the People, and unique ability to embed rulings with the color of law, has been used as a tool of the Left to declare moral standards by judicial fiat.  Thus, I do not hold such oligarchic declarations worthy of the exalted title of “law of the land”.  They deserve only a legislative review, overturn, and proactive declaration of Godly moral conduct in their place.

(Note: I advocate overturning and negating the Supreme Court’s rulings, and codifying moral standards through the legislature.  But, I wish to emphasize that the moral standards of the society should be legislated by the States, as per the 10th Amendment.)

Casual observation reveals the fact that the liberal press, legislature, and courts only raise the cry of “stare decisis” (honoring the precedent of established law) when the Ruling opposes our founding moral principles.  Once the courts have manufactured new “rights” or “progressive” social principles, the Left, and the servile media, raise their newly declared “rights” to the level of sacred legal precedents, never to be questioned or challenged again.  But, following the typical modus and spirit of Left Wing hypocrisy, the violation of 200 years of moral precedent with Judicial Activism is applauded as the correct interpretation, righting centuries of injustice, and a great victory for the Progressive cause.

Regarding the issue of late-term abortion, you state that you are against “Late term abortions.”  But, such a stand will not be a useful standard in the specificity required of legislative language.  At some point, you must decide, “At what point do we define abortion as late-term?”  Such imprecise language as “late term” is the stock and trade of campaign promises, and can be used to justify an abortion at any point in the entire pregnancy.

An illustration of the huge flexibility of interpretation possible when using such imprecise language is seen in the pro-abortion choice of language to allow abortion except for the “health” of the mother.  Such language is of course used to justify every abortion.  A stand such as “opposing late-term abortion” may be good for votes, but it does not establish you as a man of character and standards.

I do not know your spiritual inclination, beliefs, or background, but as a Christian, I suggest the following reasoning as a pattern that could strike a compromise among the various Christian constituencies:

Court rulings, Legislation, and Executive orders should only be held in honor as precedent to the extent they embody God’s Law.  The Bible elaborates and illustrates the basic standards of Godly human conduct, and it defines life as being “in the blood”.  Thus, we could define life beginning at approximately 18 days, which is the time when the blood begins to circulate.

This would satisfy those who wished to use both pre and post-coital birth control, but not those who believe life begins at conception, nor those who wish to terminate a pregnancy up to the end of first, 2nd, or third trimester.  The issue comes down to taking a stand and having a reason for taking that stand.  Taking a stand based on Biblical reasoning places you firmly in the camp of using a moral standard for your legal reasoning and legislative prescriptions.

For that reason, I developed the following philosophy about legislation and government.  I have chosen to address the issue of abortion only as an example of how to confront the problems of legislative decision as a candidate/legislator.

The chain of the establishment of law should follow the hierarchy of God’s Law, Constitutional Pattern, Legislative Prescription, and Judicial Interpretation:

1) God’s Law (God’s Law is known perfectly only by God.  Men are led in their spirits to a conviction of Truth by studying the Word (The Bible), and seeing the fruit of its application in life.  Each man hears the spirit through his own filters and bias, but each must still speak from his belief, feeling, and sense of Truth.  When a body of men dedicated to divining the Truth come together, and advocate for their perspectives, each dedicated to knowing God’s will in a matter, our hope is that the compromise agreement of Godly men will reflect the solution that balances forces that adequately satisfy the various patterns of God’s Law.  Such is the requirement for good government at all levels – Constitutional, Legislative, and Judicial.  The men who implement the abstract principles of Righteous government must continually tune their senses, conscience, mind, and heart to the individual and group divining of Righteous social patterns.  Such is the requirement of the Righteous legislator.)

2) The Constitution (This is a document written by men, but based on the principles of the Bible/God’s Law as the framework for establishing the general patterns of governmental structure.)
3) Rightly legislated law (Man’s laws should reflect Right and Godly patterns of conduct.  Legislation should be adopted only after strong reflection and comparison of solutions with the patterns, metaphors, teaching, and commandments of God.  All legislation should be consistent to the framework of the Constitution and the eternal patterns of Godliness.)

4) Rightly judged law (Judgment by men/courts based upon men’s laws should follow case law precedent.  But, that precedent should be closely related in principle to the issue.  Every law used in the judgment of a case must be judged as to its relevance, and consistency with primal/God’s law.)

If any link of this chain of legal authority breaks, the rulings and case law that follow should be nullified by the Executive, and overridden by the Legislature.  Stare decisis is an important legal principle, but it can only be rightly used if the rulings and case law cited have fidelity with the spirit of Truth.  God and His Law are the only established and True Law.  All of man’s laws are only efforts to imitate that perfection, and in essence bring it “to Earth, as it is in Heaven.”  All of men’s laws should be considered tentative, and current best-case efforts.

The most obvious of example of an appropriate opposition to stare decisis is Lincoln’s opposition to the Dred Scott decision.  And, just as Lincoln opposed Dred Scott, the Executive and Legislative branches should likewise oppose the establishment of entirely new legal principles, and principles that oppose Godliness, inserted into the body of law by court rulings.

I define Judicial Activism as a ruling that embeds a new legal principle in the body of law that opposes hundreds of years of our Judeo-Christian culture, Godly Law, and the intent of Constitutional patterns for government.  Judicial activism is legislation appearing in the clothes of unbiased legal judgment of the preexistent body of law.  When, in fact, it opposes the heart of the moral principles of our Judeo-Christian heritage.  It seeks to circumvent, erode, and replace the body of law developed throughout America’s entire legislative and judicial history.

The courts will necessarily generate new applications of law by the very nature of applying law to specific circumstances.  Nevertheless, judicial rulings at every level could be considered a type of law.  But our concern is not with minor extensions, elaborations, or applications of the law by the courts.  Such is the proper purview and application of law to specific circumstances.  Rather, the concern is with the courts generating entirely new standards of social conduct that fall outside the boundaries of established patterns of Godly societal conduct.  Such rulings and case law should not be included as legal principles upon which to base future rulings and judgments.  And, exactly such mal-application of these new legal principles to the whole of the social structure is the source of the decay we have witnessed since Everson in 1948.

To restore the proper hierarchy and fidelity to the body of law, the public and legal professionals should flag rulings, case law, and legal precedent arising from judicial fiat.  Legislatures should consider reversal, and/or establish a proper legal standard.  Once properly debated and judged against eternal and Constitutional principles, the properly legislated principles should supersede and retroactively replace the body of judicial law arising from activism.

The judiciary was established and given the authority to judge the law and its applicability to circumstances.  It was not given the authority to fabricate and establish new legislation and legal principles.  To place the judiciary as the final and superior authority over both Executive and Legislative branches is unconstitutional.  The judiciary was intentionally established as co-equal with the other branches, and a strong argument could be made that the Founders intended it to be the weakest branch of government.  But, the hierarchy has been inverted and the Supreme Court has been given the role of final authority, and it has used this position to embed new legal/cultural concepts into the body of federal and state law.

Returning to the issue of abortion in the current era, we can see the tracks of judicial activism playing out in the ruling of Roe v. Wade.  While legal reasoning of the Roe decision was plausibly defensible on the grounds of privacy issues, the myopic examination of this case led accidentally (or with covert intentionality) to the establishment of a new “right” to abortion.  While you or I may or may not agree on the righteousness of abortion as a social policy, we can both recognize that the larger principle of life being taken in the womb was not debated as a distinct entity, and there was and has been, no overt legislation passed in this regard.

Such is one of the tricks of judicial activists, to legalize new social policy under the guise of its acceptance being a natural sequela of other legal principles.  As a result, totally new social behaviors are given legal and moral approval, without ever having confronted the authorization of such behaviors on the basis of Godliness, Constitutionality, nor appropriate Legislative authorization.

In short, the courts have legislated morality opposing our Judeo-Christian heritage.  They have then mandated education/indoctrination of the new minds of the upcoming culture to comply with their new-think.  The result has been the remaking of the American mind/culture/spirit in the image of the judicial elite.

To oppose this judiciary-led cultural remodeling, we could appeal to the principles underlying a republic, which hold that only the duly elected representatives should establish laws, and those laws should encode the moral principles of God, Constitution, and only change by the amendment process requiring a 2/3 majority of its States.  Clearly, the method of judicial activism — establishing new legal/moral principles through an unelected branch — violates the sacred founding principle of rule by “the consent of the governed.”  And, polling data could be used to validate the majority opposition of the electorate to the decisions in Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Everson v. Board of Education, Engel v. Vitale, Abington v. Schempp, and Stone v. Graham.

In all of these decisions, the Supreme Court sidestepped precedent, ignored the moral principles embedded in the “stare decisis” of our Godly heritage, and created judicial fiat laws out of whole cloth.  The judiciary has gone so far as to cite the principles of foreign law to justify their rulings and decisions.  In this, the judiciary has opposed the consent of the governed and has violated the founding principles to govern with laws extended from His Law.

As a philosopher/jurist, you know that the masses do not always hold the correct view of moral life, and for this reason, the Founders created a republic, where a layer of representatives deemed mature and capable of Godly judgment would moderate the passions of the masses that can ruin a pure democracy.  Thus, when men pass laws that violate the highest principles of Godliness, the principle of stare decisis should submit to the principle of Righteousness.

Courts should overturn established precedent when they recognize a law having embedded unrighteousness.  Likewise, legislatures should continually examine the rulings of courts to ensure that they have followed the spirit of Godly morality that law was intending.

The body of law governing a free and moral people should be general.  The specifics of law should be fleshed out by Administrative law and the Courts.  Legislation should be short and contain only the basic moral principles that the courts and administrators should use as guidelines for application to specific circumstances.  Modern legislatures have adopted the policy of passing legislation containing lengthy, specific, and widely varying provisions in nearly every bill.  Such a policy allows for passage of unrelated pork spending and new social legislation.

I wish to emphasize the 10th Amendment and the intended limits on the authority of the Federal government and its Courts to legislate and judge in matters of private and public morality and group behavior.  The Founders did not give the Federal government the explicit authority to legislate Health Care, Abortion, Prayer, Education, Temperance, Adultery, Homosexuality, Crop subsidies, Welfare, Medicare, the Death penalty, etcetera…  The 10th Amendment reserves to the States all powers not specifically authorized to Congress in the Constitution.

But, the Supreme Court has aided the Federal government in its expansion of jurisdiction into all areas of human life under the rubric of regulating social activity via the commerce clause.  And since all human activity in some way relates to interstate commerce, by extension the Federal Government has a right to regulate every aspect of life.  Such is the method by which an intentionally limited central government has become strong, and is quickly moving towards becoming oppressive.

Reversing this legal precedent, and all other destructive misinterpretations of Constitutional authority requires returning to first principles.  We must be a Godly and moral people in our basic character.  The general social conscience must know what is true, right, and good.  When men become obsessed and blinded with power and deluded by the false promises of utopian ideals, we should each have the basic moral structures that respond by rebelling.  Men who know the Truth can recognize error.

Only a Godly society can be given the luxury of freedom.  A nation of rogues must be kept oppressed to merely maintain the bare minimum of social order.  But, men who have embedded the Word in their hearts recognize the character of the oppressor and refuse to put on the bonds of oppressive regulation in return for the promise of monetary security or the protective safety of police rule.  The broad and wide regulation of individuals and groups opposes the Will of God to maximize the prosperity and happiness of men.

In the debate regarding the issues of abortion, prayer, and Bible reading in school, and seeking God’s influence in the halls of government, opposition to the “established law” would be appropriate.  Such principles advanced by the courts are not reflective of the highest principles of moral law.  Rather, these rulings have brought men and their government to a lower, more secular, and humano-centric level.

God was taken off the throne and out of government in each of these rulings.  In turn, each was then used as a basis for justifying the next layer of secularization and control.  America, its foundation and laws, are based upon the moral principles consistent with the Judeo-Christian culture.  We have educated and trained a nation in the ways of secularism for the last 50 years, having prevented our schools from continuing the parent’s education of their children in the faith of our Fathers.

By removing the worship of God and training in Godliness from education and culture, we are separating from the True source of power that created America’s greatness.  Politicians glibly claim that our freedom and liberty are the reasons for America’s prosperity and power.  But sadly, the nations will see our greatness fade if we sink into the Godless morass of secular socialism and take our place as servants to the new global order.

The judiciary has been the agent of changing the ideological basis of the American culture.  We have experienced a de facto Constitutional rewrite, a revolution of culture and foundational principles.  The people have not asked for their leaders to overturn the sacred foundations, and if they had, the leaders should have refused and used their positions of honor and trust to safeguard and perpetuate our Godly heritage.

I also ran for the Republican primary nomination for the Oregon US Senate seat in 2004 in a field of six candidates.  I received 50,000 votes.  I understand the path you are walking.  I chose not to run this time, but I would be happy to be a resource for you in the realm of philosophy and perspective.  You may find it useful to examine some of the writing that I did during and since my campaign on this website.  It contains an examination of many social issues from the perspective of what it means to be a Christian nation.

I do not know your religious/spiritual background or beliefs, but I believe that all religions can be included and given freedom to follow conscience and revelation in a Christian nation.  I do not believe a papacy or council should judge orthodoxy in government.  Each man has direct access to the throne of God, and each man must choose to exercise his own spiritual ears and sensitivity of heart to the leading of conscience.  When prayerfully approached, moral perspective will necessarily guide a man as he legislates.  And such is necessary since all law is legislated morality.

Every man should hold Christian principles in his heart, and establish, judge, and execute law according to these principles.  The Laws of God cannot be repealed or void the inherent consequences dictated by His Law.

I do not believe that any other religious system in America, including secularism (which is also a religion), should be given a superior perspective above the Judeo-Christian principles.  All religions that seek goodness have a perspective to offer that should be considered in the group debate.  Ultimately, men cannot help but legislate based upon their world view, and no law contrary to the principles elaborated in the Holy Bible should be imposed upon the people.

Why should we exalt Christianity above all the other religions of the world as the Pole Star of our culture?  If it is True, obviously we should choose Truth as the standard by which we judge and regulate society.  But, each man must make his own peace, and determine what is True.  I speak for myself and declare that the fruits of our nation, its prosperity, freedom, and happiness are evidence of the influence of the Judeo-Christian principles at work in society.  Christian principles have been strong, and worked well to guide our nation, despite all attempts to subvert Christianity with other antithetical principles.  Those who would uproot our foundations attribute the errors of our culture to the failures of the Christian worldview.  But, careful examination of those errors reveals a spirit opposing the Christian patterns of life.  America should be a Christian nation because that was the spiritual milieu from which the Founders drew when they established the principles upon which to govern and form this great nation.

We have every right as a people to be a Christian nation if we choose.  The heart of establishing a nation and Constitution lies in defining its character, ideals, and moral principles.  These ideals and principles necessarily arise from a belief system that generates a worldview, and corresponding moral concepts of right and wrong.

Secularism attempts to embrace all behaviors with slogans such as: Equality, Tolerance, and Honoring Diversity.  But in fact, all tolerance has bounds.  The practitioners of tolerance quickly exercise intolerance when opposed by those who would contradict their moral structures and their corresponding social dictates.

As you probably realize, secularism has become the de facto state religion.  And in effect, banning of prayer and Bible reading in schools (etcetera) is the establishment of a religion by Congress.  In this case, the courts have been the legislative body, and Congress has given them their tacit approval of each new judicial-legislation.  They cast their votes in the affirmative in validation of the Supreme Court’s edicts as they silently vacate their right to oppose these judicial laws, each of which introduces new legal principles.

I believe the Constitution is being violated at will by liberal judges.  If the rule of law is compromised by lawless usurpation, then what recourse does the citizenry have?  Should we simply bow and acquiesce to being slaves to an oligarchy of black robed tyrants?  God forbid that the American people would ever feel compelled to rebel against the structures of law and government.

To bring us back from the brink, we must resolve these issues surrounding our government’s encroachment on our liberties and redefining of the fundamental principles that define our great nation.  The Founders purposefully designed our republic with a division of powers for precisely such purpose.  This division authorizes one branch to nullify, veto, or otherwise block the other’s implementation of unconstitutional power or principle.

The Supreme Court has clearly made decisions that are beyond its scope by its quasi-legislative rulings.  But we need not flounder in confusion for lack of precedent in solution.  We have a precedent for overriding the acts of another governmental branch illustrated in the cases of Jefferson and the Alien and Sedition Act, and Lincoln in Dred Scott.  http://www.doctorsenator.com/FoundersonJudicialTyranny.html.

Such resolutions would be preferable to the current movements toward state nullification, declarations of state sovereignty, and secession.  This progression leads to the specter of a new confederation of states dedicated to following the original legislative intent of the Constitution.  http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/03/04/the-states-rights-tradition-nobody-knows/.  If the central government could be returned to a level of Federalism rather than the current state of being more of a “national” government, many problems could be averted.

You may be fully aware of all the points of philosophy I have brought forward, but speaking my mind to a potential or elected official is the fundamental tool of moving the minds that establish the legal barriers and guidance of our society.

If the elected officials of the Republic refuse to stand for the Constitution and its authority, what peaceful alternatives are left to “We the people?”  We look to highly educated men like you to help resolve these issues.  But, we must remember that our Founders had similar issues of contentious division, but came to agreement after they submitted themselves to prayer and the guidance of divinity.  And, they were forthright in their acknowledgement of the reason for their success.

I have included below a quote from the Founders’ quotes portion of my website.  It tells the story of our Founders wrestling with the incompatible considerations of the several states and their concerns over the embodiment of principles of authorized and excluded actions for the government and its people.

Continental Congress June 28, 1787, Thursday, found the Constitutional Convention embroiled in a bitter debate over how each state was to be represented in the new government. The hostile feelings created by the smaller states being pitted against the larger states, was so bitter that some delegates actually left the Convention. Benjamin Franklin, being the President (Governor) of Pennsylvania, hosted the rest of the 55 delegates attending the Convention. Being the senior member of the convention, at 81 years of age, he commanded the respect of all present, and, as recorded in James Madison’s detailed records, he arose to address the Congress in this moment of crisis:

Mr. President, the small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other; our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics, which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances. In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. -Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

Jonathan Dayton, delegate from New Jersey, reported the reaction of Congress to Dr. Franklin’s rebuke:

The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the close of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman senate!

And the words of George Washington articulated his understanding of what will keep America great:

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to.

President George Washington, in his Farewell Speech on September 19, 1796, said:

The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.

With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits, and political Principles…

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.

In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.

The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.

Let it simply be asked where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?…

Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue?

Roe v. Wade is an assault on our most basic freedoms; it is a breach of our unalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Declaring children in the womb to not be humans that are “created” by our Creator, who has endowed us with equality and unalienable rights, is like declaring that slavery is the law of the land and all the land must accept it.  Our most fundamental legal documents in this nation are not Roe v. Wade, and others of its family – they are the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

To declare that the murder of the most innocent among us, is somehow acceptable practice, is not much different than declaring one man can own another and deny him his unalienable rights.  If murder is acceptable for the most vulnerable among us, then how do we justify our cultural moral outrage at the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing?

You have stated that you are against late-term abortion.  But, such language leaves the listener in agreement without specifics.  Thus, legislation and debate using such loosely defined terms results in meaningless agreement.  If you wish to take a specific stand, you may find the discussion on my website useful in this regard.  Using the Bible as a reference, scripture says that life is in the blood.  Blood begins circulating throughout the fetus at about 18 days of gestation.

In debate for your candidacy, you will be called upon to define your stand against late-term abortion.  By using the Biblical argument, you will anger those who hate Christianity, you will anger those who wish to discard their pregnancy for purposes of whim, and you will anger those who believe that life begins at conception.

Nevertheless, if you take a stand for legislating on Godliness, you will find yourself on a strong footing for the host of moral-economic-political compromises that you will be asked to make.  Abortion is the central issue in our current battle for the heart and soul of our nation.

It is interesting to note how mankind continues to struggle with the same demonic force, only in a different guise.  Our struggle with slavery is just such an issue.  We broke the yoke of racial slavery with Civil Rights legislation in the late ’60s, but the courts immediately subjugated us again to the same spirit with the imposition of Roe v. Wade and its legal-cultural-spiritual implications.

The effect of Roe has been similar to the corruption of a society produced by Balak and Balaam.  They plotted to destroy the Israelites from within by implanting a seed of moral corruption that would result in bringing down a curse upon them.  Balaam counseled Balak to tempt the Israelites to commit sexual immorality by allowing the Moabite women to mingle with them.  Their sin put them subject to the righteous condemnation and destruction by God.

Blessings come from obedience and worship of Him who has made us, and the natural negative feedback of slavery, dispersion, and poverty comes to a people who rebel against the worship of the one True God.  He desires our fellowship and prosperity, but when a people leave His protection and care, that people will eventually experience the pain associated with rebellion and worship of other gods.

Constitutional scholars, such as the former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, were disgusted with the misinterpretations of both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.  They note how the courts, media, and social elites have orchestrated a reversal of the true history of legal precedent.

The Supreme Court has used those misinterpretations to outlaw our basic first amendment freedoms.  I have confronted many such topics on my website.  I am happy to continue the discussion if you so desire.  I recognize my strong advocacy of a Christian nation is not currently popular in our culture, but I believe it is true and right.  And as such, I believe God will honor those who honor him, and above all, honor and exalt the nation that exalts Him.

Sincerely yours,

— Original Message —–
From: Ron
To: Margo
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: About Jim

If you have any questions for him, just email him and ask. I did and he answered. He is not Pro-Life for sure. He said he is against late-term abortion and federal funding of abortion. He said he accepts Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land. He is for deporting persons who are illegally in our country. He said employers should verify the person is a citizen before employment. He said the 2nd Amendment is an individual liberty and it was correctly affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. On Federal Spending, he said the current rate of spending has nearly bankrupted the County in the last 2 to 3 years, especially in the last year. He said it is not sustainable and will be a drag on the economy for years to come. I told him I look forward to meeting him when he comes down our way. One of my other Republican buddies had the same kind of questions about the environmental issue.