It’s Not in USA or NSA We Trust


About the author: David is executive director and founder of CEOs for Liberty, a private membership-only group for CEOs, business owners, and executives with a mission to enhance and protect American business exceptionalism. David founded CFL in 2011 given his concer ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Our Constitution was created by our founders to stop the Government.

It was created to restrict the government.

It was created to set boundaries around the government.

It was created to protect the people from government.

It was created to restrict the very institution it was designed to also create.

Screen Shot 2013-06-19 at 1.24.40 PM

Why do I keep repeating the basic concept — that the government is to be restricted? Because we’ve all been brainwashed since our first day in government run schools that the government is our savior, that our Constitution was somehow set up by the government to protect us from ourselves and the government from us.


The Constitution and Bill of Rights are solely there to structure our government as one for the people, by the people. Not, for the government, by the government. In other words, the only purpose is to protect the people from the government and other individual tyranny. It restricts power of any one part of the government such that no one part can steal any one individual’s liberty. It restricts power to very specific “checked and balanced” areas of public service and function.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one. Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Once we understand this, it is much easier to understand why many are screaming — “No, don’t let them steal your individual liberty!” Why? Because individual liberty is what defines America’s uniqueness and the main quality that separates America, and what we have as Americans, from the rest of the history’s failures.

In fact, the only reason America has started to fall is due to the fact that enough brainwashing has taken place over the last 50 plus years to the point where we are electing those who want to grow the government and reduce our liberties. We are electing those who reward companies who make crony deals with the government to quash competition. We elect those who find ways to end-run the Constitution and give more power to themselves, the government (their trough), and the crony capitalists who benefit from this power.

In essence, the only reason America has started to fail is the brainwashing is paying off.

All we need to do is to see the recent examples of this power, this absolute power, corrupting and enabling tyranny. In fact, since 2001, and even before (back to the early 1900′s), our Constitution has been steadily eroded by those who seek absolute power. And, don’t be naive enough to believe those with power do not seek absolute power. Most recently, since 2001, however, starting with the Patriot Act, we have seen a precipitous decline in our liberties and increase in the power of the state.

Just look at these three recent “scandals” (more like grounds for immediate impeachment and criminal prosecution) — they all have to do with erosion of liberty and empowerment of the state:

DOJ – AP: the government spying on our press. Our founders knew that without a free press, there would be no freedom.
IRS – Tea Party and many others: the government intimidating and penalizing select political opponents to achieve more power and manipulate elections and legislation.
NSA – Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Verizon and many others: the government spying on all of us… every single one of us regardless our color, our creed, our religious beliefs, our political ideologies.
And there are so many other scandals over the last several years that I can barely keep up anymore without dedicating a staff to research and track them.

All said, are we really this foolish? Do we really think today’s government is there to protect us? Do we really think those with trillions of dollars in global assets and power are interested in our well being? If you do, well, there’s probably not much more that can be said. All I hope is that many more start paying attention to these latest “scandals”, stop thinking “party”, “red or blue”, “Dem or GOP”, and start realizing those driving erosion of OUR liberty and driving growth of the State, only have two beneficiaries in mind — themselves and their cronies.

The solution? Study history. Study economics. Get smart. Understand that — very simply — our greatness is not in the government, but in the restriction of it. Understand that there is NO greater government in the world than one that protects YOUR liberty. Understand that government (and its cronies as it is abused) can only steal our liberties as it grows.

Understand that whenever we ask the government to do something for us, we, by definition, lose that much more liberty. As when we give the government more money, power — bureaucrats, career politicians, crony beneficiaries — they increase their strength to steal even more and desire even less to lose this power, while we are further weakened.

In other words, every time we say “help us”, we lose. Our children lose. We all lose.

For just one example, study the PRISM program and objectively ask yourself, is this the America in which you thought you lived? And also notice this did not just start yesterday — although the level and depth of this abuse has expanded exponentially since:

“…and the NSA would never abuse its awesome surveillance power, right? Wrong. In 2008, NSA workers told ABC News that they routinely eavesdropped on phone sex between troops serving overseas and their loved ones in America. They listened in on both satellite phone calls and calls from the phone banks in Iraq’s Green Zone where soldiers call home. Former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk described how a coworker would say, ‘Hey, check this out… there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out.’ Faulk explained they would gossip about the best calls during breaks. ‘It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy.’ “

“And the NSA isn’t just collecting the things we say. It’s also tracking what we buy and where we go. In 2008, The Wall Street Journal‘s Siobhan Gorman reported that the NSA’s domestic data collection ‘have evolved to reach more broadly into data about people’s communications, travel and finances in the U.S. than the domestic surveillance programs brought to light since the 2001 terrorist attacks.’ That means emails records, bank transfers, phone records, travel records.’ “(1)

I rest my case.

Finally, there is a reason our coins say, “In God We Trust”. For when we place trust in government, in the NSA, in the FBI, in any structure of government that is not constrained by the limits defined in our Constitution, we lose.

This, my friends, is not my America. It is a leviathan of which I am deeply ashamed.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The 4th Amendment.

“Even after 9/11, an American’s chance of being killed by terrorists is about the same as that of being killed by an asteroid and less than that of being struck down by lightning.”(2)

Defend Liberty. Destroy Tyranny. Understand Government Growth is Individual Liberty’s Enemy.

D.M. Chaney (C) 2013 “Thoughts on Liberty”

(1) http://www.standupamericaus.org/breaking-news/prism-not-just-verizon-data-collection-its-analysis-too-on-you/

(2) http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4647#sthash.h5XVD1R6.dpuf

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • David Chaney: “The Constitution and Bill of Rights are solely there to structure our
    government as one for the people, by the people. Not, for the government, by the government.”

    Constitutionalists are so intent on restraining government of, by, and for government that they’ve missed the inherent humanistic sedition in government of, by, and for the people, established on the fickle traditions of man (Matthew 15:6-9).

    Our true 1600 American Christian forbearers instead established governments of, by, and for Yahweh, God of the Bible, established upon His immutable morality as codified in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments:

    “Their form of government was as strictly theocratical insomuch that it would be difficult to say where there was any civil authority among them distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whenever a few of them settled a town, they immediately gathered themselves into a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was the Pentateuch…. God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally so….” (William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffey’s Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1879) p. 225.)

    Time to get back to our Christian roots! Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our Constitution Survey at bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a free copy of the 85-page “Primer” of the 565-page “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.”

    • David Chaney

      Thanks, Ted. Appreciate you input.

      • You’re welcome.

        • Whackajig

          enough with the cheering squad

    • djstucrew

      I trust Christianity no more than I trust Islam, both of which came from the same part of the world. Plus, there is not one shred of evidence that our nation was founded on any Christian beliefs. Please show me one single instance of the mention of “Jesus” or “Christ” in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, our founding documents.

      • David Chaney
        • “Constitutionalists and Christians alike often quote Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer as one of their favorite witnesses to the allegations that the Constitution was a Christian document, which produced a Christian government:

          “This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the
          United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that court … added … “a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” (David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia, PA: The John C. Winston Co., 1905) p. 11.)

          “What immediately follows Brewer’s often quoted opinion is rarely cited:

          ‘But in what sense can America be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion….
          On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders.’ ( Ibid., p. 12.)

          “How can the United States of America be a Christian nation when ‘all religions have free scope within our borders,’ in violation of the First Commandment?….”

          For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html.

      • America and the United States of America are two different entities and the nation and the Constitutional Republic are likewise two different entities. You’re correct as it pertains to the United States of America and its constitutional government. You’re incorrect as it pertains to America and the nation. The 1600 Colonial governments are replete with evidence of having been founded on Christianity and the Bible. Following are two examples:

        The Portsmouth, Rhode Island, Compact, 1638
        We whose names are underwritten do hereby solemnly in the presence of Jehovah incorporate ourselves into a Bodie Politick and as He shall help, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given in His Holy Word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.

        Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven, CT, 1639
        Agreement; We all agree that the scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in duties which they are to perform to God and to man, as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church; so likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we will, all of us, be ordered by the rules which the scripture holds forth; and we agree that such persons may be entrusted with such matters of government as are described in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 with Deuteronomy 17:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6 & 7….

        • djstucrew

          This is true, but once the United States was founded and the colonies adopted its Constitution, it is safe to assume that they agreed to the tenets of same. I also note that many state Constitution have god statements aplenty. This does not make god real any more than the song “Puff the Magic Dragon” makes dragons real. It means that we came from superstition and that superstition dies hard.

          Speaking of our earliest colonies, I’m reminded of this quote: “The Pilgrims were rebelling against what they
          felt were oppressive figures of religious authority. So they got on a boat, established a colony
          in the New World and became…oppressive figures of religious authority.” –
          Dennis Miller

          • Proverbs 26:4

          • djstucrew


          • ClintLowell

            Proverbs 26:6 would be more applicable for you sir.

          • So, not only have you rejected Christ for the false gospel of Catholicism, now you’re siding with the atheists?!?

          • ClintLowell

            How am I siding with atheists? Your the self-interpreting super-Christian. You reject Christ’s commandments by self-interpreting.

          • Clint, you’re such a hypocrite. You condemn me for interpreting Scripture outside the authority of the Catholic Church’s popery and priesthood, Where’s your quotations from Pope or priest for your interpretations? Until you provide such, you’re guilty of violating your own standard.

          • ClintLowell

            Negative. You teach, preach and proclaim some variation of righteous Christian Identify while attempting to not be racist, trying not to be anti-Semitical, claiming to know Scripture better than most, ( “I have took it upon myself to correct Gods sacred name and put it back to Yahweh …. “) and you condemn other Christians and state that they are “cults”….. how? How are you not interpreting Scripture with your own flavor? You seem to have it all dialed in to what Gods wants exactly for all of us ( more than others ), yet you ignore what Jesus commandes all over the Gospels … and you have this massive mission to “recuit” right wing conservative Republicans gone astray and suck them into your own ideals of constitution, Bible and gun laws. How am I being hypocritical? Martin Luther would despise you and so would John Calvin. You set you own standards and attempt to link them to Sacred Scripture. I pray people see your blind logic. I need not any quote from any Pope, preist or Nebraskan Pastors. Christ was clear as day about how He wanted business handled and arming citizens to fight the government was not His agenda … Mission to “Israel” however is another story ….. “Until I provide such I am guilty of my own standard ….. ” What exactly is my “own standard?” And until I provide what? You have mentioned in the past that you believe that God wants us to follow the dietary laws today … and you also have informed me that the Lunar Cycle is how we should follow the Sabbath …. what about what Jesus says in the Gospels? Just ignore Him? Or wait you have a better idea of what He meant to say …. You are clueless as to how the Israelites followed the Lunar Cycle …. your four year “bible degree” isn’t that advanced …. Christ was serious in Mark 2:27 and Acts 10:9-16 is clear about food, and 1 Timothy 4:4 … so again, you SMORGASBORD Scripture to fit your own idea of how we should uphold what Christ ended ….

          • Not only have you further proven my point concerning your hypocrisy, you also persist in misrepresenting my beliefs and thereby also prove yourself, once again, a violator of the Ninth Commandment. May Yahweh have mercy on you!

          • ClintLowell

            How am I bearing false witness to God by challenging you Pastor Weiland? By Misrepresenting your beliefs? You condemn Christians because they do not follow your anti-Semitical views and you don’t have anything to say when challenged on it. Your “popery” sermon is a false, heretical short collection of non-sense.

            “There is a Jewish agenda against Christianity,” Weiland said after claiming ( show me in the Bible where this is ok ) that Jewish translators took the word “Yahweh” out of the Bible a total of 6,823 times to deny Christians the power that exists in the name. “They (the Jews) are not the true Israel. They say we are the haters, but the Jews are the enemies of Christ.” Weiland wrapped up on a relatively softer tone. He denied he was a racist or a white supremacist and instead called himself a separatist. Please define separatist.

            Ted R. Weiland used in his July 14, 2005 letter to Tony Gonyer, this was the sum and substance of his pronouncement. One can be quite sure, had Ted R. Weiland been as skilled in the Word of Yahweh as he pretends he is, he would never have made such a ridiculous statement! Weiland’s words to Tony were: “I’m a racialist, not a racist.” Whats the difference? Your sic logic blindfolds many people into believing that European Caucasians have some sort of hierarchy comparatively to the rest of the world. People attempting to seek out Christ are stopped dead in there tracks with your version of Christianity And then you say Catholic are anti-Christ? You sling that verse around a lot for a guy who claims to be righteous and non-condemning. You do teach against inter-racial marriage, do you not? Please explain Numbers 12:1 to the audience Ted. You say I am “proving your point with hypocrisy” … could you further explain this please? Could you also deny your involvement as an Identity Christian? If white-European’s are the lost Israelites today, and the Khazarian Jew’s are just nomadic Gypsies, then that really leaves the Book of Revelation open for a plethora of self interpreting babble, rather than the truth it is as a Supper with our Savior. How do I not no that Tim Lahaye has it figured out better than you? I mean the “Rapture” is just as attractive as all white people being Gids Chosen people … again … what did Christ teach? Sorry, but “Mystery of the Gentiles” is not a sufficient explanation.

          • T. Edward Price

            Clint: “You teach, preach and proclaim some variation of
            righteous Christian Identify while attempting to not be racist, trying not to be anti-Semitical, claiming to know Scripture better than most…”.

            Please show where Mr. Weiland has EVER advocated racism. Be sure to define racism, so we know you’re not making it up as you go. Keep in mind that your accusation should be able to meet the most stringent standards. Also, show just ONE instance where Mr. Weiland has shown ANY kind of racial bias toward someone, merely because they are of Arabic descent. You have repeatedly made that accusation, so prove it. And where has Mr. Weiland publicly (or privately, for that matter), EVER claimed that he “know(s) Scripture better than most”.

            Clint: “[A]nd you condemn other Christians and state that they are (“cults)”..”.

            Another outright lie! He has been consistent over several decades in describing the groups to which we could, as Christians, extend the “right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:9).
            This includes many groups with differing views than those held by him. The deciding factor is usually one’s view on the deity of Christ. Either you know this, and falsely accuse anyway, or you don’t know this, and are guilty of showing yourself a fool (Proverbs 18:13).

            Clint: “You seem to have it all dialed in to what Gods wants exactly for all of us ( more than others ), yet you ignore what Jesus commandes [sic] all over the Gospels…”.

            Again, please show just ONE instance of Mr. Weiland EVER ignoring, or teaching others to ignore, even ONE command that Christ ever gave us. You make satanic accusations before many witnesses, accusations that are easily shown to be lies.

            Clint: “[Y]ou have this massive mission to “recuit” [sic] right wing conservative Republicans gone astray and suck them into your own ideals of constitution, Bible and gun laws.”

            Mr. Weiland’s “mission” is to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, and the Kingdom of God, here on earth, as it is in Heaven. Nothing more, nothing less. That you continually lie about what is in the public realm, for ALL to see, speaks volumes of your character, or lack thereof.

            Clint: ” Christ was clear as day about how He wanted business handled and arming citizens to fight the government was not His agenda … Mission to “Israel” however is another story .”

            You might want to rethink this. Since you have publicly made the accusation, more than once, that Mr. Weiland preaches, and advocates, “arming citizens to fight the government”, you have not only committed libel in the legal sense (a matter which can very easily be established), but you have exposed this Christian site, and all who stop by to visit, to potential scrutiny from an ungodly, antichristian, tyrannical government. This make you an agent of said tyranny, whether knowingly or not. I challenge you to cite just ONE instance where Mr. Weiland has EVER advocated an armed revolt against ANY government. I’ll wait. Go ahead. I’m still waiting…Still WAITING. Oh, that’s right. How silly of me. You CAN’T! That’s because he NEVER said it! As a matter of fact, many people have criticized, or even condemned him, for NOT advocating an armed uprising of the people. The typical “right wing conservative Republicans gone astray”, as you called them, are the ones who believe it is their “God given right” to overthrow the government, drawing their inspiration from Thomas Jefferson, the Humanist who denied the deity of Christ.

            Clint: ‘You have mentioned in the past that you believe that God wants us to follow the dietary laws today…Christ was serious in Mark 2:27 and Acts 10:9-16 is clear about food, and 1 Timothy 4:4 … so again, you SMORGASBORD Scripture to fit your own idea of how we should uphold what Christ ended .”

            SO WHAT? The passages you cite have absolutely NOTHING to do Levitical food laws. They ALL have to do with the nature of man’s heart. This is a perfect example of what happens when one takes certain passages, devoid of their context, and attempts to justify the lusts of their own heart. I ,also, make every attempt to follow the Biblical dietary laws. Many people do. That issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with salvation, and I know Mr. Weiland agrees with that point. You condemn him because he thinks God gave us the best recipe for health? So do you likewise condemn all who choose to follow a Levitical diet? Christ followed the same diet. So did the apostles. Mr. Weiland condemns no one for NOT following such a diet, and correctly teaches that we have the liberty in Christ to do so, or not. On the other hand, you advocate a system that WOULD condemn me, for eating certain “clean” meats on certain days, while encouraging the consumption of that which was once forbidden. So who’s really the hypocrite here?

            And finally, what in the world does ANY of this have to do with David M. Chaney’s wonderful article? Did you even read his article? For you to disagree with either the author, or a commenter, is one thing. But to hijack the thread, merely to attack a commenter, and launch your personal vendetta, is to display the ultimate disrespect for Mr. Chaney.

            You continually expose your willingness to slander and libel an honorable Christian man, simply because he banned you from his site for violating the site policy, and ignoring his warnings about promoting other faiths on an expressly Christian site.

            Either humbly repent of your grievous sins, or go away. But rest assured, your attempts to undermine and derail the Kingdom of Christ will most certainly fail.

          • ClintLowell

            Take the time to face Catholicism before to you low-blow Catholics … you owe it to Christ to defend your sic ideals …

          • ClintLowell

            Exactly. The Puritans felt they needed to adhere to Old Testament Law … that Our Savior Jesus Christ clearly fulfilled … The problem with what the founding fathers of this nation did with warping biblical law is that they created a man made agenda which encompassed bit’s and pieces’s from the Torah and bit’s and piece’s from the Beatitudes.

            Old Testament law, as such, is not binding on Christians. It never has been. In fact, it was only ever binding on those to whom it was delivered—the Jews (Israelites). That said, some of that law contains elements of a law that is binding on all people of every place and time. Jesus and Paul provide evidence of this in the New Testament.

            Matthew’s Gospel enlightens us to Jesus’ teaching concerning Old Testament law:

            “A Pharisee lawyer asked him a question, to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:34-40)

            In saying this, Jesus declared the breadth of the new law of his new covenant which brings to perfection the old law. He explained further to his disciples:

            “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:17-19)

            How does Christ perfect the Old Testament Law?

            Old Testament law included many dietary regulations which were instituted as a preparation for his teaching on the moral law. Jesus discussed these laws:

            “Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:14-19)

            Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation . . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts . . .. Paul taught similarly concerning other Old Testament law:

            Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon . . . These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ . . . Why do you submit to regulations, “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:16-17; 20-23)

            In this passage we can see that Paul recognized that much of the Old Testament law was instituted to set the stage for the new law that Christ would usher in. Much of the old law’s value could be viewed in this regard.

            Jesus’ teaching about the Sabbath indicates similar value in part of the Old Testament regulation of the Sabbath:

            Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath.” (Matt. 12:1-8)

            Clearly, Jesus indicated that he—not the Old Testament—had authority over the Sabbath, and its regulation was not as rigid as the Pharisees thought. In fact, once Jesus would endow the hierarchy of his Church with his own authority (Matt. 16:19; 18:18), regulation of worship would become the domain of the Church.

          • T. Edward Price

            Clint, no one is more blind than the one who believes he can see perfectly. Every passage you quote actually reinforces the perfect law that was in the garden with Adam. Your rejection of Christ’s “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25), in favor of the “tradition of the elders” (Roman Catholic pharisaism) keeps you blind to the meaning of that which is right in front of you. To align yourself with one who completely condemns Christ as nothing but merely delusional superstition, makes you complicit with his denial of the Christ, thereby fulfilling in both of you the very definition of antichrist: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22)

          • ClintLowell

            It is sad to see that you can not see past the meaning of what began at Mt Sinai ( temporary until Christ came). The Law established in the Garden can not be the same as the Aaronic, Levitical and Mosaic Law. How could it be the same? Explain to me the Gospel’s where Christ explain simple things such as dietary laws, Sabbath being created for man, not vis versa and many more examples of Mosaic fulfillment. Delusional superstition? How? I am an anti-Christ? Friend, your a blind fool to condemn people as such. How are you not self-interpreting scripture? Do you follow the Sabbath? Dietary Laws? If so, as I know Pastor Weiland does, explain to me what Christ said about the Sabbath and dietary laws. Would you shoot and kill people for Christ? Do you believe He would have you kill people in His name? Have you ever read the martyrdom and Roman persecutions? I imagine you have some hateful idea behind that as well. Keep in mind, most of hose men were reared by the Apostles themselves.

          • T. Edward Price

            Clint: “Would you shoot and kill people for Christ? Do you believe He would have you kill people in His name?”

            ABSOLUTELEY, if that were the ONLY way to save the life of my wife, or another innocent victim. To NOT protect yourself, family, and neighbors, from criminal assailants, is to deny your DUTY under Christ, thereby making you a coward!

            As for the rest of your post, answering a delusional and confused rant avails nothing.

          • ClintLowell

            Coward? Have you ever studied Ignatius? He studied directly under John … how about Polycarp? It takes more nerve to trust in Christ as your wife is set afire, gored by lions and your children have there hands and feet cut off ….

            Delusional rant? How so? So do you base your home-defense logic off one Bible verse?

          • T. Edward Price

            Clint, I really appreciate you making my point. Your lack of understanding would be entertaining, were it not so sad. I have indeed studied Ignatius and Polycarp. In my younger years I studied the early Church Fathers extensively, especially the pre-Constantine era. I endeavor to be quite particular with my language. If you read my post above, you will CLEARLY see the phrase “from criminal assailants”. What you refer to involves Christian persecution. These are two COMPLETELY separate matters. I was explicit in my comment, yet again, you failed to apprehend the meaning. I will repeat my earlier comment: “To NOT protect yourself, family, and neighbors, from criminal assailants, is to deny your DUTY under Christ, thereby making you a coward!”.

            Clint: “So do you base your home-defense logic off one Bible verse?”

            Quite presumptuous of you, don’t you think? What ONE Bible verse do you presume forms the foundational basis for my correct home, and self, defense strategy?

          • ClintLowell

            Luke 22:36 is the verse you mentioned several weeks ago before I was “removed from Constitutional Mythbusters” … If you’ve studied Polycarp and Ignatius, then again, you reject there teachings, which were the teachings of the Apostles. One should protect there families – I have NEVER said other wise. But launching an up-rising against the government with violence in lieu of biblical teaching is false. Mission to Israel Ministries teaches false doctrine and men like can not let go of your own ideals. Where in the Bible, the Gospels most importantly, does Christ explain that my duty is to violently protect my family with secular weaponry in lieu of love and prayer? Those who live by the sword die by the sword, right? Do you think Peter or Paul would have used a Colt .45 if provided with one? How about Polycarp before he was inflamed, then bled out? Or what about John the Baptist or James prior to there beheading? How about Stephen? Surely he could have threw stones back! You can not mend Scripture to however you want it …. this is precisely what is wrong with your Protest-ant ideas.

    • foxxybey

      Amen, a person who really knows about the Constitution. All the first 13 states have God in their Constitutions.

  • foxxybey

    I trust in the God who created this world and none else and least of all a government, Communism worships government, Nazi’s worshipped the government and both are wrong and evil in every way. Men are sinners by nature and by choice and can’t be trusted to lead anything. God gave a way of salvation for all, Jesus (Savior) Christ (Messiah) and His gift is free to those who accept it, can’t be bought, can’t be worked for and never religious enough, a gift is given and thanks is given without anything in return or it is no longer a gift. Can be had for the asking and repentance of sin, yes we all sin, we may call it by another name but still sin. Premarriage sex is still sin, homosexuality is sin both male and female, Extra Marrital sex is still sin and thinking on lust is a sin just like you committed it in the flesh, sin. We are all sinners and come short of Gods perfection, so He let His Son die in our place to pay the price of sin which is death and offer’s it for free to those who will trust in His way of salvation, the death, burial and resurrection as the payment for sin. Easy but rejected by those who think they are gods and do what ever they want and the God of Creation has to except their stupid idea’s. Like a potter who’s clay tells him what he will be, LOL

    • djstucrew

      that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he
      owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate
      powers of government reach actions only, not opinions, I contemplate with
      sovereign reverence that act of the whole of the American people which declared
      that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of
      religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall
      of separation between church and state”
      – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the
      Danbury Baptists, 1802

      Also seconded by James Madison, who wrote: “The
      purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores
      the endless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for

  • David Chaney: “Understand that there is NO greater government in the world than one that protects YOUR liberty”

    This is not true!

    “…The Scriptures provide no evidence of God-given (or unalienable) rights. Even life and liberty are not rights, but rather responsibilities delegated by Yahweh. Of course, rights are much more popular than responsibilities. Everyone, including homosexuals and infant murderers, demand their rights, but few are interested in fulfilling their responsibilities.

    “The Puritan idea of rights and liberty was quite different from what the framers had in mind:

    ‘John Winthrop [first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony] … reminded his fellow-citizens of Massachusetts that a doctrine of civil rights [as in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights] which looked to natural or sinful man as its source and guardian [as in the Preamble] was actually destructive of that very liberty which they were seeking to protect. True freedom can never be found in institutions which are under the direction of sinful men, but only in the redemption wrought for man by Jesus Christ. Christ, not man, is the sole source and guarantee of true
    liberty.’ (C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) p. 19.)

    “R.J. Rushdoony pointed out the sophistry of governments based upon freedom:

    ‘….[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over.
    Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.’ (Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581….”

    For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html.

    • David Chaney

      Thanks, Ted. Appreciate you input. Your suggested alternative to our Constitutional Republic?

      • David, thanks for responding.

        There’s nothing in this article or on your website (my apologies if I missed it) that would indicate that you’re a Christian. If this is true, it’s not likely what I’m going to suggest will carry a lot of weight with you, but here goes nonetheless.

        First, like the Biblical Gideon, we have to first identify, expose, and eventually tear down our fathers’ idol before we can ever hope to replace it with something better. This must begin with convincing today’s “conservative” Christians that the Constitution is antithetical and, in some instances, seditious to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality in nearly every article and amendment. It is unquestionably America’s national idol and until it is unmasked for what it is, there is no hope of building something better. At this point, we are at the VERY beginning of this process, what is likely a two or three generational vision, of preparing the ground for a future generation of our posterity to do it right(eous) the next time.

        The something better is government and society of, by, and for Yahweh, based upon His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11, etc.). America cannot vote herself off the precipice of degradation and destruction she presently finds herself on. She must repent her way off, beginning with our own personal idols residing in our hearts and then our national idol that is the cause of everything we find wrong in America today.

        I hope this helps. If this has wet your appetite, “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” should prove helpful. All 565 pages are available online at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.

        • David Chaney

          Thanks, Ted for your detailed answer.

        • foxxybey

          I guess you read the 1st amendment and can find the word separation of church and state, really then get glasses, the amendment was to protect all religions from the state government. The first 13 have in their Constitutions that if you didn’t believe in the Father, Son and Holy spirit you could not represent them, church was held in the capitol building for over 50 years, the first Bible paid for and printed by the Congress on your buck, so a lot of not historical facts being presented as truth. You can be your own little god man but, when you die which you can’t stop then comes the judgment, hope you can be as smart when that happens. Your president thinks islam is good and others are terrible but don’t see your defense of that false religion so must be a robot to the government and your god? You couldn’t figure right from wrong as you are told not to judge and that is a distortion of what God said, if we can’t tell right from wrong then evil is good and good is evil and that is a distortion in itself. I’ll pray for your soul which is really your mind un regenerated and lost.

          • T. Edward Price

            I’ll pray for your reading disability. It is obvious you haven’t read a single word Mr. Weiland has written. He preaches the ONLY Biblical solution to the satanic scourge that is Islam, and you think he supports an Islamic impostor president? Hilarious!!

          • foxxybey

            After reading your BS, don’t need too.

        • foxxybey

          Your the one with a reading problem and a immoral a–.

          • T. Edward Price

            Thank you for proving my point. You can’t even respond to the correct person.

    • foxxybey

      I agree, freedom was given by a righteous and good God, not evil men and their rules, Real freedom is in Christ alone.

  • Rob Pobe

    Gee, didn’t you know that President Obama is preparing to announce that he is the 12th Imam–the incarnation of Mohammed–returned to restore Islam?

  • Raymond – Jesus is Lord.


    The moral dam is bursting in American society, as witnessed by the recent national election. Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize the possession and sale of marijuana for “recreational use,” thus moving the country toward a 24/7 dope/alcohol stupor. (Rapper Snoop Dogg recently said he smokes 81 joints or “blunts” a week and that other musicians and actors that he knows are also avid “weed” smokers.) Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, but a major milestone has been passed, and there can be little doubt that enforcement will decrease dramatically, which is what the American people want. A USA Today poll recently found that 70% of Americans age 30 and older, including baby boomers and beyond, oppose enforcement of existing federal laws against marijuana use.

    Further, three states (Maine, Washington, Maryland) voted to legalize “same sex marriage.” This is the first time that voters have directly approved a homosexual “marriage” law and it is a major milestone. When homosexuality is considered “moral” there can be no absolute basis for morality. Six other states plus the District of Columbia currently allow homosexual “marriage,” but those laws were not passed by referendum. Thirty-nine states prohibit same sex “marriage” either by statute or constitution, but it is highly probable that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually overturn all such laws on the basis of judicial fiat and liberal activism.

    The moral dam burst is evident in the dramatic change in attitude toward sameSex “marriage” over the past decade. Whereas in 2004, 42% of the citizens approved it, in 2010 that percentage had risen to 53%, and among young people 18-29, a whopping 73% approve (“Attitude Toward Gays Changing Fast,” USA Today, Dec. 6, 2012). In fact, as we have documented in the book What Is the Emerging Church? many so-called “evangelicals” are outspoken in their tolerance of homosexuality.



    The moral dam burst that we are witnessing in America has been a long time in developing. At a fundamental level, it began in the 19th century with theological modernism and Darwinian evolution, in fact, but it was at work dramatically even in the 1950s which is often considered the hay-day of morality and biblical Christianity in modern America. I was growing up then and America was anything but biblically moral, even in the deep South where Baptist churches were on every corner. Independent Baptists barely existed then.

    It was the Southern Baptists who were considered the conservatives of the conservatives, yet they weren’t taking the Bible seriously. There was more a form of godliness than the true reality thereof. Kids typically went through the motions of “trusting Jesus” without a genuine conversion experience and without being true disciples of Christ, and then lived as they pleased and drank as deeply of the oncoming pop culture as they wished. It was even expected that church kids would “sow their wild oats.” The humanistic philosophy was that parents shouldn’t be too “strict or tight-laced.”

    When rock & roll blasted on the scene, there was some resistance by the elders, but it was party time for the church kids and it wasn’t long before the parents were rocking, too! When television and Hollywood foisted their wares on society, the U.S. churches pretty much accepted what was offered, except for the most extreme stuff, walking lock step with the world. They fussed about the moral pollution, but they stayed tuned in, nonetheless, which is a major form of soul-deadening hypocrisy. It was a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Disney kind of Christianity.

    A major thing that was missing from “conservative” American Christianity in the 1950s and 1960s was the obedience to biblical separation. In fact, it was publicly and brashly renounced by major “evangelicals.” But when God’s people are the “friends of the world” they are the enemies of Christ (James 4:4), and there is no power and blessing in that path. The deep compromise that flowed from the churches effected the entire nation. For a long, long time, America’s morals have been leavened by the licentious end-time philosophy (2 Timothy 3-4) promoted through the government school system, the pop-entertainment culture, the mainstream news media, judicial activism, and in many other ways.

  • Rueann

    Obama has brought the country to a point where we really have no one to trust anymore. He said that if we can’t trust him, we are in trouble…. well guess what Barry.. WE CAN’T TRUST YOU.. now or ever!!

    • Whackajig

      You can still trust God

  • djstucrew

    Number of times the name “Jesus” appears in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence: Zero. (Nada, zilch, zip!) Only refereces to a god: 2 (vague reference to a “creator” and another to “nature’s god,” which students who know their history and have studied the Enlightenment know to be a reference to naturalism). The U.S. never had an officially recognized motto until 1956, when “In God We Trust” was adopted in the face of “godless communism,” the Soviet Union having declared themselves an atheist state. (The U.S. had declared itself secular years before, but unlike the Soviets, our founders barred government from banning or intruding on religion via the First Amendment.) Before this official action, the previous U.S. motto which had never formally been adopted in any official way, aside from being inscribed on currency, was “E Pluribus Unum,” (From Many, One), a reference to the many different cultures, nationalities, religions and races that make up the U.S. populace, generally referred to as “a nation of immigrants.” It was a far more inclusive motto, and a better descriptor of the American People.

    The hastily adopted “In God We Trust” is also Unconstitutional as well, given the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. Intellectual honesty requires that we look at the background and intent of those who wrote and enacted the change of motto, not the “weasel words” used by lawyers who insist that, because no specific god or denomination is specified, that it passes Constitutional muster. When we do, of course, it fails. This is backed up by the U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, who were reluctant to sign because they, as a Muslim nation, were wary of doing business with what they saw as the “Christian Nation.” To allay their fears, it begins: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…,” going on to say that we harbor no enmity towards Islam (“Mussulmen”). This document was submitted to Congress and signed by then President John Adams and passed unanimously.

    So while I agree that the NSA (or anyone else) has any business snooping on the private affairs of free citzens, I reject the theistic implications.

    • agbjr

      To be frank … your commentary is asinine.

      • djstucrew

        To be frank… your opinion is vague.

        • agbjr

          “Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, not any government secure which is not supported by moral habits…. Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.”

          Daniel Webster

          • djstucrew

            Operative word: “anscestors.” NOT “founders.” Out of context, that could refer to Druids. As long as we’re tossing quotes around, how about: “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
            maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance
            of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes” – Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von
            Humboldt, 1813

          • agbjr

            “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

            John Adams

          • djstucrew

            June 10, 1797, President John Adams signed a treaty with Tripoli assuring its
            Muslim population it had no reason to anticipate religious problems in its
            relationships with the United States of America. Article 11 of that treaty,
            unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate, stated “…the government of the
            United States of America is in no sense founded on the Christian
            Religion.” THAT John Adams?

          • agbjr

            It is obvious you do not comprehend 18th century English common usage … a mistake many make when attempting to ‘interpret’ the Constitution and other documents written then.

          • djstucrew

            Hmmm. So what, specifically, am I misunderstanding? Has the meaning of “in no sense” changed? This sounds like something gun grabbers say about the 2nd Amendment…

    • David Chaney
      • djstucrew

        How does this apply? (Could’ve used the Reader’s Digest version…)

        • David Chaney

          Easy 10 page read. It relates to your comments. If I had more time, I’d give you the distilled version. However, I believe a read of the opinion will be most valuable. Otherwise, all I have for you for now. Thanks.

          • djstucrew

            Not so easy on my schedule — LOL! I’ve skimmed it again and I’m missing it. Sorry.

          • David Chaney

            No apologies necessary. Good luck.

  • agbjr

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    John Adams

    • foxxybey

      Amen agbjr, you got it right.

  • marion

    Americans must learn what is going on in the world of secret espionage in what they are saying to other people. they must realize that BIG brother is watching and tailor their lives in such a way as not to give the enemy any information that could be used against you. it is sad but this is what is happening in America. the people of the Soviet Union suffered from the total state and now it has come to the USA. learn to live with it even though it isn’t nice.

  • Buck

    Here’s who I trust…..

  • Robert S Moulds

    The democrats have been too zealous in their use of the patriot act which has undermined the constitution concerning property rights the rights of criminal defendants. The bill should not have passed in light of NAS and IRS abuses. It is no surprise that in god we trust is put on money for weather he exist or not he at least is has not abused the patriot act.

  • Ed

    The recent NSA snooping news is right in tune with Glenn Beck’s books, The Overton Window and The Eye of Moloch where a shadow war is being waged for the future of America.