America's Abomination

July 10 - August 11, 2013
Post 299

[I have really been working on this Post between summer obligations and thought I would get this posted three weeks ago! It is regrettable that this thought has been unavoidably stretched over a several week gap, I urge you to review the last two short Posts to refresh the topic and direction to which we are attempting to reach].
* * *

The Abomination of the Roman Catholic Church:
Do you understand that the Roman Catholic Church, as the self-declared “Vicar of Christ,” has, from at least the end of the Reformation (*1), officially and consistently confirmed that the scriptures are in fact the infallible word of God (*2), yet historically that issue was one of three main issues for the Roman Catholic Church when condemning Christians to death (*3). Christians of course have historically always stood firm on this same principle of fact, so how is it that the one organism of “church” murdered in mass so many of the other while both used the same Holy book as inherently inspired to direct their motives and actions? What was the foundational value upon which such a violent disagreement took place? (the one killing in violence and the other dying in violence: see Fox’s Book of Martyrs 1570).
We might readily believe that the disagreement is rooted in an over rated difference of interpretation, but this is nothing more than a derailing side issue like “aliens seeding the earth” as an explanation for how “Evolution” theoretically began (*4); it is but a skirting avoidance of the actual foundational issue of contention that persistently seems to grow more mysteriously unanswered over time with the additional explanations needed to clear up the additional questions rising from the growing confusion of compounding explanations to the persistent unanswered question: How did life begin?

To argue with a smoker that his filthy habit is expensive, makes his clothes reek, and stains his teeth, might be trying to help him see that he should quit, and his countering argument might be that he is rich and can afford it, likes the color yellow, and finds the familiar smell comforting, but the fundamental issue that these arguments don’t address is that the very practice of smoking is deadly by it’s compound nature of pleasure and addiction, coupled with its toxicity to the body. Smoking and health are not mutually compatible; the very nature, the foundational nature of smoking is the death of the smoker.
Likewise, all the detailed reasoning against the practices of the Catholic Church may be valid, and yet artfully rebutted, but the nature that goes so far as to meanly murder thousands of non-combatants per day over an extremely long period (*5) even beyond the count of multiplied millions, is a nature so deadly at its foundation that it must be recognized as such for the sake of all humanity. Dictatorial; Despots, Kings, Tyrants, Presidents, and Churches, are all variations on power-hungry means to manage and manipulate the people under their scope of power, forcing compliance to their carnivorous whims in the fear of destruction and death. My argument is not in their authority to govern-- which by existence they obviously have-- but is in the evidence of their application that shows the wicked foundations upon which their governance is established (*6).
This section of Posts intends to show clearly that foundation of death, and how it differs from the right and just foundation of life it pretends to be. And from that foundational identity we will explore the details identifying the daughter of a strange god (Malachi 2:11), which will lead us to discover how to recognize the daughter of the Chaldeans (Babylon), though she be a seemingly perfect, lovely tender and delicate virgin (Isaiah 47:1).

“Why not marry this young woman in her innocent youth, profound beauty, and unspeakable potential for mutual happiness?
* * *

Marketing Cannibalization:
In the marketing world this is a term used to describe a very curious tactic of introducing a new product at the expense of a similar or competing product (*7a). This definition publicly is most often restricted to products within the same company, but quietly this is not necessarily the case (*7b). In order to maintain a positive public view of the concept the examples given only reference activity internal to a single company with the idea that it doesn’t hurt anyone but the one making the choice to cannibalize its own products, yet in the real world of marketing cannibalization can have an additional subversive factor that I wish to cover as a conceptual explanation of our topic.
Of course-- by the very definition of the word-- cannibalization can only occur within a same-species relationship: People that eat cows are not cannibals, but those that eat other people are. In the business world there are companies that buy up outside companies-- even presenting the idea to an emotionally attached seller that they intend to grow it-- then after the purchase, they take them apart and sell off or absorb the pieces for a profit. This is called cannibalizing the newly acquired company because it happens to a company now owned by the one who dismantles it; “It’s all in the family,” even though there was never any intent to continue the one destroyed. In the marketing world one company can buy the product brand-name of a competitor to remove it from the competition. This is execution not cannibalization, but in a subversive twist this upfront conduct can be darkened by quietly maintaining the competitor’s product brand-name it now owns, and legally shove the new owner’s product in the popular brand packaging, thus having “two products” of the same stuff for sale to an unsuspecting public who thinks they still have a product choice between competing companies as Whirlpool did to Maytag (*8). Many longtime brand-satisfied and loyal customers even loudly proclaim the “great taste” of the one while hating the taste of the other while wholly ignorant of the change that has taken place. Having ownership of two companies like competing gas stations on opposite corners of an intersection, they can play good-cop-bad-cop marketing, or loyalty aimed price-wars, and manipulate the customers all the while collecting all the money from “both sides” of every customer choice. This is the subversive marketing of a cannibalized popular product name, where the original product is nowhere to be found within the brand packaging. This is the Eastern religion of Yin and Yang where the God of Nature and nature’s God are nowhere within either side of the circle that preaches Nature as god.
Simplistically stated, this is what the Roman Catholic Church has done to Christianity as Christians needed relief from the murderous Empire of Rome, and the Catholic Church was born as a favorable saving merger between Church and State. In that condition the public church of Christianity ceased to exist while the new owners continued using the brand-name of Jesus to sell its new product of “peace by compliance to oppression.” The gas station on this corner was named the Roman Empire, and the station on the other side of the street was named the Roman Catholic Church. Yin and Yang in the same circle of darkness. Mother Theresa made another such leap by recently cannibalizing Hinduism into the Catholic Church and began extending its reach even further where it was not previously accepted. Like a fast-mutating virus (*9a) such as HIV (*9b), Catholicism’s strength is in its ability to morph itself to each new application while maintaining its unchanging power structure, “compassionately” reaching over its new domain until it gets a stranglehold where it then mercilessly sucks funds, loyalties, and blood. This morphing nature is the opposite nature of the earlier discussed definition of Holiness (Post 297 “Holiness Profaned”), which Judah once loved but married another of a different nature from another god (Malachi 2:11).
* * *

Wrongly judging a life-form by the results of its lethal parasite:
Most of us know now that America is going down because it is rotten at its core and its still-warm corps is putrefying as we speak. But looking at it in this condition today we are obligated to recognize in its framework and form, that like a dilapidated and rotting old building, the present condition of decay does not automatically prove the structure was not once sound and glorious. Something allowed the rains and mold to seep in where it could begin its rotting process, the question to ask is; Was it due to poor construction or poor maintenance that brought it to this state? In otherwords; was its foundations sound or corrupt? (I Corinthians 3:14-16).
Now if the structure is already too far decayed to restore then who really cares to investigate the cause? “Don’t look back; look forward.” But if a new structure must be built to replace it, wouldn’t it be wise-- before we burn it down-- to learn what to avoid so that a repeat does not occur?

“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it” - Credited first to Edmond Burke (1729-1797).

And if we don’t investigate the cause, how do we actually know that the structure is in fact not salvageable? Not many years ago people were doomed to die of things they contracted, which today are fully cured by nothing more than a standard pill or injection that is hardly significant enough to mention in a daily rehearsal of current events to a friend: “Today I ate an orange [and am cured of scurvy].”
Times are changing and we have greater understanding that allows us to make quicker and more accurate evaluations and even correct wrongs that were previously catastrophic and even fatal (CPR). So rather than doom the nation to death without an honest review, let’s do a serious evaluation of its ills and what caused them… and maybe even distinguish between the life-form and the virus, in order to discover a ready cure even at this late phase. The quiet unresisted death of this world-influencing nation would be too globally consequential to imagine, the unhindered parasite of death must then find new hosts.

Our founders did a similar detailed study when attempting to create a new DNA structure of national governance for the conception of their new nation. Possessing their faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ at the cost of historical persecution, they understood the foundational elements in the governments of other nations through history and their long-term liberties, oppressions, and causes of their demises, then chose the very best form of government that they believed would preserve the elements they cherished: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness/(property), based on yet unrevealed deeper foundations.

So what happened to America; was Christian Republicanism a flawed choice?

By identifying the trending foundational change events that affected the progression of construction and maintenance, the exploration of the rest of the structure only adds unnecessary confusion. So let’s quickly work backwards through the rubble to identify the progression of decay on a foundational focus, and so discover the fundamental chain of events that brought this nation to its current state (many important elements of our history will be left out here because although very important, they are not foundational; example: Economy, which is but a by-product):
* * *

Not a Christian Nation - 2009:
In Ancara Turkey, 2009, the newly elected-- and current-- “President” of the United States of America made a universal declaration on behalf of the entire nation as a whole:

“…We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation, we consider ourselves a nation of [generic] citizens, who are bound by [generic] ideals and a set of [secular] values.” - Obama in Ankara Turkey (2009) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIVd7YT0oWA).

My added words in brackets to his meaning must be accurate on the grounds that he claims we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation… or have any other restrictors of specific guidelines of a specific faith such as Judaism or Islam etc. “Generic citizens with secular values” is the only available option left. Apparently we are a functionally Pagan nation whose “set of values” are specifically not specifically of faith while they remain generically tolerable only of a chimera of meaningless religions. That is a very significant proclamation for a nation, and even more so if we ever were Christian at one time.

No longer a Christian Nation - 2006:
But that is not the full value of this issue. The more accountable part of the problem is that even before he was seated as President-- like Hitler and his pre-election best-seller book Mein Kampf (*10)-- this man already made these views known publicly, yet they “voted” him into the highest office anyway (not here discussing voter fraud in America, only that the nation did not refuse to accept Obama for his anti-Christian view of America’s heritage and the opposite direction he openly intended to take the nation):

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation. …” - Senator Obama 2006 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmC3IevZiik).

The remainder of his statement is frankly irrelevant because it simply supports this declaration, (though the cancerous nature and prophetic significance of that following portion is profound).
For depth into his meaning of the above speech, see also Obama's open mockery of the Holy Bible on June 28, 2006 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w).

This man was not hiding his worldview or his perspective of what America should NOT stand on, even before he took the helm to implement his own opinions of what worldview America should have. In accordance to the Gender Typology of Numbers 30:3-5, and seeing that America’s elected public servants are seated by the will of their sovereigns the people, the people are in Type the father of the elected (responsible and accountable), and can annul by demand anything that public servants say or do on their behalf or in their name (I Samuel 14:44-45). But the people not only did not annul his Senatorial claims by demand, but allowed this blasphemer by uncontested election to be seated as President in spite of such speeches, and then after a second such proclamation as President, they went ahead and re-elected the man and thereby doubly confirmed that as a nation we proudly agree with his repeated proclamation. Such an unopposed public vow by the national figurehead now stands confirmed as the American perspective whether we like it or not. By Numbers 30:4 our time of disallowing his claim/vow has passed and God now holds us accountable as if we had declared it ourselves.

Ok, so allowing his proclamation as valid, why not seriously explore; what we once were? You know, for the history books and all that. Why cast off the past as insignificant to know? And if it is so insignificant why declare that even though we don’t know what we once were-- and don’t care to find out-- we are absolutely NOT a Christian nation now? Doesn’t this strongly suggest that we most probably were a Christian nation of one sort or another before we decided to NOT be, and we are now determined to make sure we don’t repeat that Christian history? So why go with the whole “whatever we once were” bit? Obviously Christianity is the scourge that we must make sure of all things that we don’t ever become again-- even if we never were. Isn’t this the actual meaning of such a statement?

“If we ever were once a Christian nation-- as many Americans claim-- we are now specifically determined to be something OTHER than Christian from here on out.” - what Obama really said by the above quote.

Isn’t this the real meaning behind what Mr. Obama said? Am I just putting words in his mouth or can another meaning of that statement be found more accurate? Clearly Christianity above all things known or unknown is the very clear focus to be shunned according to his declaration identifying it so prominently before adding other religions to his list of prohibitions. By specifically stating that the past is irrelevant to the present and we are specifically NOT a Christian nation any longer-- if we ever were, the new form of anti-Christian governance has been declared conclusively and accepted as such by America. It seems that his claim in his Presidential acceptance speech was dead on true:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” - Obama acceptance speach (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUMuYCpXJ0A).
(see his compatriot Bill Ayers’ comments on this same line of thinking and his reasons for it: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJt2zhd27a8).

Are at least some of these arguments by Mr. Ayers reasonable? Yes. Clearly America has very significant evils that need immediate correcting. Are his solutions reasonable? Not even a little, but that is for another discussion. The discussion today is; How did America come to possess these evils? Is this a result of having been a Christian nation?

OK fine, by willingly and knowingly and officially casting off Christianity and its God, we are not a Christian nation anymore. We have now, by accepted declaration, officially ended the battle against what God calls evil, and the promotion of what God calls good (Isaiah 5:20-23)-- even though what we once were is still, at this level in the excavation, questionable if we ever were a Christian nation. Let’s go with that “presently not Christian” idea and continue our digging through the surface rubble of this nation in the effort to find the (fundamental) foundation upon which it was actually built. What were we in the past?
But before we just move on it must be noted plainly that from the inauguration of Mr. Obama forward, if things get better or worse it will be directly because of the new fundamental transformation from what we were to what we are now, and that being SPECIFICALLY NOT Christian. While we are still uncertain regarding the past, you cannot continue to blame Christianity for America’s future, no matter how it turns out. It’s your baby now, so let’s see how you do from here on out having cast off the last remnants of Christianity-- being the very Name, like a divorced woman who then goes to all the legal effort to eradicate even the sir-name of her husband from her identity. The only things left to deal with are those pesky children of His who cramp her “free” lifestyle of a "single-again" woman. Any guesses as to how she will dispose of them?

But since we aren’t quite sure yet what the nation actually once was, we need to start digging into its past in order to find out what went wrong to bring us to this state that needs such desperate fixing. If we are clearly not Christian now by earnest paranoid Christianophobic declarations, what were we before? And when did the problems begin? Was it the destruction of the family and morals in the 60’s “Free Love and drugs” Peace movement?
* * *

Separation of Church and State - 1962:
At this next significant level of the dig what we do know for sure is that after the 1962-63 ground-breaking decisions of our Supreme Court to remove not only Bible reading but also even the appeals to God from our schools and institutions (*11), American society was officially no longer guided by its former Church values-- made obvious by this push to eliminate an existing “problem” of Church influence. Presumably that church was Christian but we haven’t dug deep enough to actually find out. All we know at this point of our archeology is that after 1962-63 you couldn’t blame church influence on the nation’s social problems or governance because those church values were by law officially stricken from our institutions of public education-- both legal and secular, and those future citizens and lawmakers were no longer instructed that religion was not only acceptable but necessary for a free society, Christianity was now excluded to the realm of religion-only and exclusive of any practical application or influence in public affairs and the education of the next generation.
It might have been said in 1963:

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a nation influenced by Church values.”

It seems quite apparent that whatever we were before 1962, Christianity can not be blamed for anything after 1963.
So did things in our national society and/or governance get better or worse after 1962-63 when it wasn’t the fault of official Christian influence anymore? Did our children grow up with better morals? Are they Happier? Do they have as much Liberty? Is our nation more secure? Do we have a better standing among the nations of the world? Is our global influence better or worse?
It seems quite apparent that things did not get better as we are now facing social meltdown on most every level and the surrender of our progressively dilapidated nation to global governance if something is not done to stop the simultaneous collapse on every national issue: Murder, Theft, Adultery, Child Crimes, Incurable Disease, Economy, Education, Produce and productivity, Military Sovereignty, Crime in Government, etc., etc. So why can’t we honestly ask-- for evaluation sake-- if it was a mistake to eject the Church from influencing the State as was apparently customary previous to 1962-63 when it was officially forbidden by the non-precedential Judicial private interpretation of the law?
Let’s leave that question hanging for a bit and keep digging:
* * *

Case Law - 1870:
In 1870 Professor Charles W. Eliot (http://www.harvard.edu/history/presidents/eliot)-- the new President of Harvard University in 1869-- appointed Mr. Christopher Columbus Langdell as the head of the Harvard Law School over the disregarded protests of the seated professors regarding Langdell’s lack of qualifications. Our law students, first at Harvard and then around the country, began to be educated in Langdell’s new system called the Case Study Method. Blackstone’s concept of a solid foundation under the law was abandoned and the Evolutionary view of American Law was born (*12):

“Law, considered as a science, consists of certain principles or doctrines.... Each of these doctrines has arrived at its present state by slow degrees; in other words, it is a growth, extending in many cases through centuries. This growth is to be traced in the main through a series of cases;…” - Preface to Langdell’s 1879, Cases on Contracts, cited in H.W. Titus; God, Man and Law p.4 (http://www.herbtitus.com/God-Man-and-Law.html).

From 1870-something until the 1962-63 Supreme Court decisions, American law was interpreted by the judges using the slowly evolving decisions that came previously. In historical ignorance, the 1960's Americans-- even Christian Americans-- presumed the review of Case Precedence was a long-standing practice to maintain a consistent interpretation of the original intent of the original law-in-question before the court, but now, understanding the nature of the Evolutionary worldview, we see it was for the opposite purpose: to carefully “grow” the law by slow selective evolution into something that it was not originally:

“[T]he law [is] a living thing, with a continuous history, sloughing of the old, taking on the new.” - John Gray (one of Langdell’s colleagues in changing the view of law in America), per H.W. Titus; God, man and Law p.5, sited by The Truth Project Lesson 10.

This historical and fundamental transformation of not just American law but how Americans determine the law, beginning as far back as 1870, is the foundational view of law in which Obama and nearly all current lawmakers and judges were educated. It is this Evolutionary worldview that motivated Mr. Obama’s concept that the U.S. Constitution is a deeply flawed document that needs by nature to Evolve (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI). His Historical Revisionist stated reasons for this view are wholly incorrect, but again, that is for another discussion. Yet don’t you wonder why of all the unlawful and subversive changes he is making to the Constitution by unconstitutional application and process, he has not touched the racial reason he identified as his explanation for his view?
In 1962-63 this long-standing Case Study practice of presumed Christian maintenance of the law was suddenly and completely abandoned, and the Judges made their own exclusive and radical private interpretation of the law, fully contrary to all the American judges before them (II Peter 1:20-21 if you can make the connection of Type).
Among other reasons, Christians cried; “foul!” because of the sudden deviation from the historical “American way.” In frustration with this new and radical action by the court to deviate from Case Study practice in order to sooner reach their desired radical ends, we were sure that our righteous contention was based upon the foundations laid out for us by our founders, yet now we know that we were duped by complex ignorance of what the founders actually gave us! … which was NOT Case Study Practice to determine what the Law should or shouldn’t be, or how it should be applied/ interpreted.

So just what kind of process did our judges, lawyers, and lawmakers use before 1870 when Case Study Law was suddenly a revolutionary new idea for America’s moral evaluations and legislation? What would cause Langdell’s strange value system-- formerly so foreign to American culture-- and why would Eliot appoint such a man when even his credentials lacked worthiness for the position?
We need to dig even deeper through the now-old putrefaction at this level of excavation. At this level the decay itself has by time turned to dirt and the stench of death has dissipated by long familiarity with corruption. What we need to discover is what patriarchal life-form this dirt used to be and what caused it to die so long ago.
* * *

“On the Origin of Species” - 1859:
Ten years before the Evolutionist Charles Eliot arrived at Harvard to appoint the Evolutionist Langdell, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMXCy2VUAbM) and began the publicly “scientific” worldview of everything naturally getting better and better when left to Evolve over time. The single premier factor for Eliot’s choice of Langdell as the head of law at Harvard was that “they both believed that Evolution was true, and that Evolution was the overriding principle, and that principle should be perpetuated through every area of academia” (*13). This was an entirely new worldview concept of reality in America, this was NOT Christian nor did it have any Christian worldview elements, its only recognizable wrapper is that it came from long-trusted “Christian” conservative Harvard. Already in 1870 the cannibalization of Christian America, like a parasite or a cancer, had taken only small bites at a time, and the “little more than an irritation” to the former ways was not aggressively rejected. Like in our not-to-distant past, the tiny lump in the breast was ignorantly ignored by embarrassment as a curious anomaly-- the body still “felt fine”-- and normal life continued as the cancer spread until it was too late to survive it.

The utterly non-realistic/non-scientific theory of Evolution, as an alternative to the “I made it the way I wanted it when I made it” Creator God worldview (Genesis 1:1-31), gave rise to a line of thinking that had not previously been present in the general governance or social practices of this nation. At the 1870 sudden transformation of America’s foundations, it might have been said:

“Whatever we once were we are no longer a nation based on the Creator God worldview. At least not just, we are also an Evolutionary nation, and a… uh… well, there isn’t any other theories available.”

It’s not that America stopped believing in the Creator God worldview, but that it wasn’t limited to that idea anymore. The door was flung open to values and ideology that were contrary to the former American Creator-God worldview of reality… which theory actually followed the evidence of real science that shows on every level things just DON’T get better over time when left to themselves-- you know, the whole entropy thing, the first and second laws of thermodynamics (*14), the evidence in virtually everything in the known universe, the total lack of evidence to the contrary (such as the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record), and all that stupid stuff that tends to mess up a good theory such as Evolution.
This duality of worldviews in our institutions of education and the social minds of those so educated, created a slow schism in the governance and function of the nation that, because it took years to get these students into the practice of changing how we perceived American law and society under this new worldview, didn’t reveal itself for quite some time, and then little by little through their influence. By the time the problems began to seriously show themselves, Case Study was already established as a part of America’s unquestioned history and assumed to be a part of its Christian heritage… if our heritage was ever actually Christian to begin with. So, whatever we were before 1870 (or at least shortly after those students became America’s leaders), we cannot continue to blame Christianity for America’s growing fundamental problems… not: “at least not just,” but not at all.
Christianity’s worldview is not a form of governance that mixes with other forms of worldview governance. The Creator God theory does not allow partners in a cosmic collaboration of how things work. It’s foundations are either Christian or they are not. What we know at this lower level in our excavation is that whatever it was before 1870, after the 1870 generation, American foundational governance was not in practice Christian, but Evolutionary.
Now don’t get me wrong, the nation might indeed have still been Christian-- if it ever was-- but the new sprouts, the changes made that lead in a new direction, the alterations of our laws and society to adapt new values, the legal interpretations made under the now changeable foundations of right and wrong, like cancer cells converting healthy cells, were no longer whatever they were before, but now Evolutionary in nature. I suggest that this is when Democracy truly began in America as a means of cannibalisticly determining fundamental law and its interpretation of the former ways.
But since this is foundational to the nation, let’s explore a bit more of the even deeper details to see just what this baby was made of before the putrefaction of the democracy disease began. Yet we can already note: that having transformed the foundations of America long before Obama took office, the liberals have nonetheless constantly cried that Christians are the ones destroying this once great nation… even though since the 1870 generation of lawyers and judges the very nature of governance in practice has not been Christian based!
What we are finding in this historical dig is that the changes that keep driving Christianity further and further from America over time, aspect by aspect, have NOT been improving the nation-- even if we don’t yet know what it once was that made it so great. Is it just me, or can we conclude that from 1870 until today is a long enough period of evaluation to show that Whatever we once were, THIS foundational mess is not now, nor has it been for a very long time, Christianity’s doing! (*15), so why do we keep blaming Christianity?
Let’s continue digging as we get closer to the foundation of foundations upon which this once great nation was actually built:
* * *

A United Nation of long-existing American States was Born after a Hard Labor - 1776-89:
It is easy to bunch a lot of history into small categories, and for clear evaluation this is often done with honor, but in the bunching we loose a whole lot of needful information to have a right perspective on what it is that is bunched.
The more you study Early American History the more you realize how complex and drawn out the process was and the many and difficult factors that combined to result in the United Nation of States in America. From the establishment of the first colonies in 1620, and then the creation of individual States, eventually resulting in the implementation of the Articles of Confederation for the separation war effort, and later replaced by the new U.S. Constitution that laid out the total scope of the Federal government’s authority, which was not accepted until its perfecting process was completed with the inclusion of the Ten Amendments called The Bill of Rights, which clearly identified areas of untouchable citizen freedoms that the Federal would be most likely desirous to encroach, this was a long and laborious effort.
I continue to enjoy reading The Federalist Papers as I learn the mindframe and reasons the authors of the Constitution had for what they felt important to include, and the Preamble to the proposed Bill of Rights is self-explanatory in its significant importance (*16). Those rights today have been ignored, sidestepped, and subverted by the very Government that the Amendments protected us from if we would but hold those Republican rights dear and untouchable.
What I also find a curious study is discovering the worldview these founding-age Americans had and where that worldview came from. What amazes me is that in all the diversity of ideas and opinions they shared or hotly contested in this great effort, the foundational thinking remained strikingly consistent between them all. They shared a foundational understanding that came from somewhere. I am smelling that we are reaching the actual foundations upon which this nation was built. We are reaching its fundamentals that Obama promised to transform.
So let’s keep digging around here for a bit and see what we can discover.

A strikingly common theme from the pilgrims, up through our founders, and continuing even through our early national leaders for the next 100 years, was that two principles were the foundations upon which this nation was built and would be sustained: religion and morality (*17). The list of quotes is extensive and I have included but a few, but by their prolific writings it is clear that our pre-1870 national leaders and the founders themselves were convinced that the foundations of this nation were unquestionably religion and morality, and those foundations were derived from the ultimate foundation of truth: The Christian Bible. When early Americans mentioned religion, it was not in any way a generic intent. From their consistent proclamations of conviction America’s religion was unmistakably Christianity from as far back as the Pilgrims who first came to these shores with the intent to create a nation (*18), up through the 1892 Supreme Court Justice of the established but already shaken nation who openly proclaimed by extensive review that America was unquestionably and intentionally a Christian Nation by inseparable and voluntary national practice of a Christian Republic.

"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, we will then, be surely doomed."
“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” - John Jay, October 12, 1816.

“If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” - Supreme Court ruling 1892 (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html).

By their many and consistent written words through time, we know that the rulers of our established nation and our founders overwhelmingly had the same mindframe as the Pilgrims, and so we need to explore what aided that consistent universal perspective over many generations when it came to the laws, the establishment, and continuance of our nation, even after the cancer began to show signs of affect.
* * *

Blackstone Commentaries on the Law, 1765-1769:
Blackstone was one significant commentary on the law among few others, and used by our founders and all following U.S. American student and practicing lawyers and lawmakers until 1870-- whether they were Christians or not (See Charles G. Finney An Autobiography 1876 *19). The original concept of our form of government was unquestionably and specifically based upon the notion that the laws of nature and nature’s God were not negotiable nor susceptible to change by the will of men and whims of governments, but that it was the duty of politicians (*20) to seek out and implement in practice the Laws that already existed as given by the Creator.
Still today, in our very confused nation, even a simple-minded man would not consider writing or obeying laws that contradict the Law of gravity. Gravity is not determined by a college of men who write laws. That law is simply not up for review or change by a Democratic vote. It is a law of nature, made by nature’s God. Any law written contrary to the law of gravity would be rejected as absurd and irrelevant specifically because it violated the Law of gravity. The law of Nature shows that you do not breed with the same gender. See how this works?
William Blackstone expounded on the concept that all law is based on this fundamental truth; that the Maker had already established the Law-- either revealed by nature (such as gravity) or by the written word of God called revelation (such as “Honor the Sabbath day” Isaiah 58:13) It was simply up to lawmakers to find them, know them, and write social laws of governance that conformed to them:

“…as man depends absolutely upon his maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the Law of nature… This law of nature…dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority…from this original. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.” - William Blackstone 1723-1780, Commentaries on the Laws of England vol.1 A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765-1769 pp.39,41,42 (emphasis added).

Our U.S. Constitution-- the very structure and boundaries of our operational government and the foundational laws of this Great Land-- were so established upon such sought-out foundational truths called Laws of God, that the evidence of this fact in the writings of our founders and early leaders fills entire books for the volume.
God’s Laws do not evolve (*20b). God’s Creation did not-- nor is it now-- Evolving as Darwinism suggests. America’s Constitution was a powerful effort of imperfect men creating a quality reflection of the perfect God’s non-evolving laws. The first ten Amendments were added as a human perfecting of their original reflection effort… the later Amendments were added as a crafted Evolution of transformation of what was originally established. This is entirely two different things!

• A Democracy is a government of ever changing laws by the majority will of the masses as their unfettered values evolve with each progressive notion.
• A Republic is the masses conforming socially to a higher authority of untouchable laws.
• A Democratic Republic is when the masses choose and maintain a Republic for themselves.
• A Subversion is when the masses, liking the benefits of their Republic, go about “making it better” by transforming the Republican laws to suit their Democratic values.

It is my conclusion that America changed from a Republic to a Democracy when we forgot that our laws were to be based upon the unchanging Laws of nature and nature’s God. This took place when Darwin’s Insanity was accepted as the system engine of thought that drives the education of our leaders and culture. This system was officially born in America in 1870, though as is natural, its conception was already developing well before that actual birth (*21).
The belief in Evolution is far more toxic than a meaningless intellectual concept of pre-historic history irrelevant to practical reality. It is the ejection of God from the foundations of who we are and how we function as human creatures. The long-coming predictable result is a “President” of a once Christian nation who can declare that we are no longer a Christian nation, and the nation does not cast him to the ground as the salt that has lost his savor.
You really do get the leadership that you deserve!

“The White House is urging Congress to reject an attempt to stop the National Security Agency (NSA) collecting Americans' phone records.
With a key vote coming up, President Barack Obama's spokesman said curbs on the NSA would “hastily dismantle” a vital counter-terrorism tool.
NSA chief Gen Keith Alexander spent Tuesday lobbying Congressmen to vote against the proposed measure.
Critics say NSA phone data collection is an unwarranted invasion of privacy [U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights Article IV].
The details of the programme were made public by Edward Snowden, who had worked for the NSA and is now a fugitive, awaiting a decision on his asylum application in Moscow… The U.S. has charged Mr. Snowden with leaking classified information.” - BBC 3:00 AM July 24, 2013 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23430126).

So let me get this right: Here in “the land of the free and the home of the brave” the faux-President (*22) is urging Congress to continue allowing the government to spy on, record, and store, the private phone conversations of Americans in mass after their unlawful activity was revealed, while the guy who leaked this existing unlawful secret activity to the public is a fugitive from the law for informing us? Just who is Snowden a fugitive from; America? Or is it more probably the tyrannically motivated new “no-longer-a-Christian-nation” Government of America that makes up whatever laws they want as they feel they need them. How is it possible that an American is seeking asylum in a recently former communist country because he informed free Americans of anti-American activity by their own gloriously democratic government that cries; No more Christianity!!!, ARE YOU SERIOUS? Is this a silly Hollywood comedy plot of wild imagination, or is this actual reality?
How do we honestly proclaim in amazement; “GOD HELP US!”, Why in God’s name should he?

Yet somehow it’s all Christianity's fault and God forbid we should ever become Christian again!
The Change that Obama promised and brought is not change at all, it’s the same ol’ anti-Christian hatred that has been chewing at this nation from the beginning like weeds in a garden. It’s the same persistent spirit that proclaims after 2000 years of absence, all the world’s problems is still those dirty Jews-- even though all that time they haven't had a home or nation from which to control the world through religious or governmental power of authority. Go figure~.
* * *

If ever a nation was actually created as a Christian nation, history proves it was America. Not because there were a bunch of Christians as citizens living here, or because the nation's law demanded everyone be a Christian (it didn't), but because its foundations; its fundamental function; its acceptance or rejection of proposed laws and conduct, were not the result of Evolving ideas and principles of the populace or politicians, but rather simple reflections of the unchanging laws of the Creator himself. This concept is fundamental to America, and this foundation is what made America the greatest nation on Earth and unlike any other… and what has been attacked constantly through America’s history. Each attack-- though until now to some degree repelled by a healthy immune system-- has nonetheless altered the worldview of America just a little bit more. Obama’s bold claim that his purpose is to “fundamentally transform America” has met with so little resistance that I am afraid this last attack has fully succeeded without a scratch to the Anti-Jesus cancerous invaders by demonic power. Today’s generic “Christian Americans” have no useful foundational knowledge of either Christianity or America, and the numerous cannibalizations of those foundations have until now left intact the paper wrapper of Christianity as the trusted brand-name, until eventually the man sitting in the highest office can offhand remark that we are not even sure if America ever really was a Christian nation, yet nobody seems to argue because by peeling back the wrapper it doesn’t look like it ever was.

So today we hear the Liberals cry loudly that Christianity is attempting to steal the secular country and put their own brand wrapper on what was clearly created as a secular nation. The cannibalization of America has been completed to the point we no longer need the old wrapper because the new product is what we actually want now by long familiarity. The gods of pagan history are now welcomed, and flooding into our movies and culture along with their amoral morality.
America has been subverted, and its lazily ignorant Christians simply watched it happen like viewing a two-hour horror movie for entertainment before going out to play.
* * *

“Is there any hope left?” you ask.
God says there still is. One option. One hope. One answer:

“[Oh America,] Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” - Revelation 2:5.

“The foundation of this country is not the Constitution. It is much deeper than that!” - Del Tackett “ The Truth Project” Lesson 10 (http://www.thetruthproject.org/) An absolute must have!

Are you beginning to see the wicked ways Christians must turn from before God will heal our land? (II Chronicles 7:14). The concept is still bigger than you can yet imagine, and like this excavation of America, we are step-by-step getting closer to revealing that foundational concept.

To answer the original question in this Post under the heading; The Abomination of the Roman Catholic Church:, the foundational difference that resulted in the murder of countless millions of those committed to the same holy book as the murderers, is the same foundational difference between America past and America present: Liberty and Tyranny are not compatible bedfellows, but contenders for the same ground.
I urge you to read Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=54) to evaluate our current perspective against that of his. My concern is that Christian Americans today have long shown themselves ignorantly unworthy of such liberty and so the providence of God will not allow us to acquire it through “the only answer” they perceive: rebellion against an oppressive government.
It is God’s approval we must seek and not Liberty without it. Do the first works of the Pilgrims and our founders: Repent of an independent spirit, and devote your life to following hard after the God of Creation and Liberty in a practical and very real way. Once you become the willing servants of God you will know the Freedom that is yours to possess against those who would enslave you. Then it is not rebellion but the right of humanity to live accountable to God alone. This is what the Martyrs understood, and this is what our founders were empowered to establish.
* * * * * * *

(*1) Dating the Reformation:
“Historians usually date the start of the Protestant Reformation to the 1517 publication of Martin Luther’s ‘95 Theses.’ Its ending can be placed anywhere from the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, which allowed for the coexistence of Catholicism and Lutheranism in Germany, to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War.
The key ideas of the Reformation— a call to purify the church and a belief that the Bible, not tradition, should be the sole source of spiritual authority— were not themselves novel. However, Luther and the other reformers became the first to skillfully use the power of the printing press to give their ideas a wide audience” - (http://www.history.com/topics/reformation).

(*2) “At Vatican Counsel 1, which met in 1870, the following statements were made by the Roman Catholic Church; ‘The scriptures came under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author (repeating the pronouncement of Trent) the scriptures contain revelation without err.’ This notion of inerrancy was affirmed by Pope Pius 10th in 1907.” - RC Sproul podcast: “Scripture and Tradition (Part 1).”

(*3) Three Main Issues of the Reformation Dispute: The theology of the Reformers departed from the Roman Catholic Church primarily on the basis of three great principles:
• Sole authority of Scripture,
• Justification by faith alone, and
• Priesthood of the believer.
- (http://www.theopedia.com/Protestant_Reformation).

(*4) Chasing Evolution:
This answer to How the process of Evolution first began as life itself, simply passes the question on to another point in time: “So, where did the aliens come from?” By leaving the question unanswered the door is opened to accept that Aliens are the gods of creation. And while “science” utterly rejects a Creator God as the answer, it seems more than willing to entertain the concept of seeding aliens. The reason is because aliens are found within our universe system, but this very reason why they are an acceptable consideration to “science” is why they cannot be The Creators. The next “logical” step is to declare aliens are angels and therefore outside of our universe and therefore potential candidates as the intelligent designers that made us. Aliens are gods. Genesis 6, as revealed law, has already covered that foolishness a very long time ago.

(*5) “And yet, notwithstanding the sharpness of these so many and sundry torments, and also the like cruelness of the tormentors, such was the number of these constant saints that suffered…that, as Jerome saith, ‘There is no day in the whole year unto which the number of five thousand martyrs cannot be ascribed, except only the first day of January.’” - Foxe’s Book of Martyrs 1570, p.12.

“Compared with the persecution of heresy (by the Roman Catholic Church) in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first three centuries after Christ was a mild and humane procedure.
Making every allowance required by an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and persecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast (animal of nature).” - Will Durant, The Story of Civilization (Simon and Schuster, 1950), vol. IV, p. 784, sited by Dave Hunt A Woman Rides the Beast pp. 243-244.

(*6) Paralleling the Jewish Sanhedrin in Type as it persecuted the Christians regarding the “same” faith, the argument of the “Reformers” was not demanding that the Roman Catholic Church should not exist, but that it was foundationally flawed in going beyond the scripture in its demands of loyalty from Christians at the peril of their lives for noncompliance to the Church’s usurpation of the authority of God’s prophesied Christ. The question that will not go away when reading Fox’s Book of Martyrs is; Who really named it “the Reformation”? Are we to suppose that Christians, exampled first by Luther, at the cost of their lives were actually trying to reform the murderous Catholic Church as if it was the true church just “slightly off” on a few points to be corrected? Were the Christians, by appeal and arguing reason, admitting that the Roman Catholic Church had the rightful authority of Christ; or were they more probably simply dealing with the unjust power that happened to exist over their lives at the time, like Rome, and that authority was wrongly claiming to be of Jesus Christ? Were Christians not simply standing on the true Christian faith as faithful to Christ, and by their unyielding personal stand secondarily showing the Roman Catholic Church it’s hypocrisy of being a forgery by putting to death Christians who would not confess the authority of the Church over the authority of personal conviction in faith? This was completely a matter of power hunger by the organization, hardly different than any other evil dictator with the power of life and death… only instead of just purely political differences-- which Christ commanded its subjects to obey-- this was a spiritual difference of loyalties demanded, that were owed to God alone-- which by example the Apostle Paul and the others would not yield, for the cost of their eternal salvation if they complied. The first two pages in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs makes clear of this fundamental understanding of the Martyrs that the Catholic Church was not of Christ and not Christian. Therefore calling the martyrs a movement of Reformation of the Catholic Church is accusing these faithful Christians of marrying the daughter of a strange God by attempting to draw her closer to their views until they were compatible enough to merge into a single faith.
A reformation of sorts, of the Catholic Church, due to the shameful deaths of countless millions of Christians at their hands, may have in fact taken place, but only to the beguilement of those who would later be drawn into hell unawares by this more benevolent approach of that bloody church. The reformation of the Catholic Church is hardly more than an outward beautification of a Hitler in female form. The martyrs were not reformers of the Catholic Church anymore than the Holocaust Jews were reformers of Nazism. The Roman Catholic Church could not be reformed any more than its father the Devil himself… but cosmetics and a lack of discernment by the voyeur can really make a change in reception, as is evidenced by the abomination of cross dressing a man to look like a woman and then encouraging the lust of ignorant heterosexual men.
On the other hand, as evidenced by their resolute stand in the face of unspeakable horrors, it is beyond question that Christianity needed no reformation at that time.

(*7a) Definition of 'Market Cannibalization':
“The negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its existing related products. Market cannibalization refers to a situation where a new product "eats" up the sales and demand of an existing product. This can negatively affect both the sales volume and market share of the existing product. Market cannibalization occurs when a new product intrudes on the existing market for the older product, rather than expanding the company's market base. Rather than appealing to a new segment of the market and increasing market share, the new product appeals to the company's current market, resulting in reduced sales and market share for the existing product. Also called corporate cannibalism.”

Investopedia explains 'Market Cannibalization':
Market cannibalization can have a negative effect on a company's bottom line, forcing an existing product's life to end prematurely because sales shifted to the new product, rather than tapping into a new market as intended. At times, market cannibalism is used as a strategy (called a cannibalization strategy) if the company wants to increase its market share, and hopes that the introduction of the new product will harm its competitors more than it will harm itself. Market cannibalization occurred, for example, when Apple introduced the more feature-rich iPhone and iPods that ate up sales for its lower-end iPods, including the nano, shuffle and classic series. - (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketcannibilization.asp).

(*7b) Merriam-Webster.com - CANNIBALIZE:
transitive verb
1a: to take salvageable parts from (as a disabled machine) for use in building or repairing another machine
b: to make use of (a part taken from one thing) in building, repairing, or creating something else
2: to deprive of an essential part or element in creating or sustaining another facility or enterprise- the energy system has begun cannibalizing the economic system it is supposed to fuel — Barry Commoner
3: to use or draw on material of (as another writer or an earlier work) a biography that cannibalizes previous biographies
4: to take (sales) away from an existing product by selling or being sold as a similar but new product usually from the same manufacturer; also: to affect (as an existing product) adversely by cannibalizing sales - (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannibalize).

(*8) “On April 1, 2006, Whirlpool completed its acquisition of Maytag Corporation. In May 2006, Whirlpool announced plans to close the former Maytag headquarters office in Newton, as well as laundry product manufacturing plants in Newton, Iowa; Herrin, Illinois; and Searcy, Arkansas by 2007. Following the Maytag headquarters closure, all brand administration was transferred to Whirlpool's headquarters in Benton Harbor, Michigan. The Maytag name would now be used on Whirlpool-designed appliances” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maytag).

(*9a) Morphing Virus:
“In computer terminology, polymorphic code is code that uses a polymorphic engine to mutate while keeping the original algorithm intact. That is, the code changes itself each time it runs, but the function of the code (its semantics) will not change at all. This technique is sometimes used by computer viruses, shellcodes and computer worms to hide their presence.
Encryption is the most common method to hide code. With encryption, the main body of the code (also called its payload) is encrypted and will appear meaningless. For the code to function as before, a decryption function is added to the code. When the code is executed this function reads the payload and decrypts it before executing it in turn.
Encryption alone is not polymorphism. To gain polymorphic behavior, the encryptor/decryptor pair are mutated with each copy of the code. This allows different versions of some code while all function the same” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphic_code).

Mutating Virus:
“The 1918 Spanish flu killed at least 20 million people around the globe. Fears of a similar pandemic have health officials concerned the death toll could be much higher in a modern outbreak, which researchers say is very likely if the current deadly bird flu morphs into a strain that can be transmitted by humans. Travel between countries has become vastly more frequent and quicker, which would hasten the spread of a highly contagious and lethal virus. In the last of a three-part series, LiveScience examines how a virus jumps from birds to humans and reaches pandemic proportions. …
Shifty genes
Influenza could become a pandemic threat because its genetic information is constantly shifting. The virus can change two ways — the common and subtle "antigenic drift" and the rare but drastic "antigenic shift."
Antigenic drift refers to the continuous changes in the virus that make it slightly different than previous versions, requiring the yearly production of new vaccines. While your immune system may have developed resistance to previous versions of the H1N1 virus, for example, it can't prevent infection against this year's slightly newer version.
Antigenic shift is a major reshuffling of proteins in the virus that results in a new subtype combination of neuraminidase and hemagglutinin surface proteins, in science-speak. If this new subtype has never been seen in humans, or hasn't been seen in many years, most people won't have protection when it enters the population. If the virus has attributes that allow it to spread easily, it could spread across large regions or around the globe” - (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10181563/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/how-virus-can-morph-killer/).

(*9b) (https://www.anl.gov/articles/new-approach-vaccine-design-targets-hiv-and-other-fast-mutating-viruses).

(*10) Peter Viereck, Meta-Politics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1941, 1961 ed.), pp. 317-18, sited by Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast pp. 58-59.

(*11) “In two landmark decisions, Engle v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools. While the Engle decision held that the promulgation of an official state-school prayer stood in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (thus overruling the New York Courts’ decisions), Abington held that Bible readings and other (state) school-sponsored religious activities were prohibited.” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer).

(*12) Harvard: Originally founded as a Christian institution for higher learning in the principles of God (*12b), the pride shown by Harvard’s own website regarding the changes made by Eliot takes on new meaning and comprehension. Harvard went from Christian to Pagan and the students that graduated Harvard post 1870 were educated to think and reason like Pagans not Christians. Ask yourself if our lawyers and judges are more trustworthy, honorable, and wise than they were before 1870. Study not only the progressive results in their rulings on the intent of the law and its social and moral applications, but on the caliber of men they are. Are they known for their uprightness or does the likes of the following joke bring a knowing nod and laugh of recognition: “Why don’t sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.”
Has Harvard been Cannibalized? Whether you like their present program or not, if you know its now obscured history you must agree the answer is yes. The name that Harvard had in its former day still carries with it a great trust and respect even though there is not a shred of the former product inside its “honorable” wrapper.

(*12b) From Harvard’s original Rules & Precepts - 1636:
“Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore lay Christ at the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning” - as cited by The Truth Project Lesson 10.

(*13) “The Truth Project” Lesson 10.

(*14) Entropy: [from Greek Trope’ a turning, change, after energy.] A mathematical factor which is a measure of the unavailable energy in a thermodynamic system - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1948.

Entropy: 1: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly: the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system 2a: the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b: a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder 3: Chaos, disorganization, randomness - Merryam-Webster.com 2013.

Thermodynamics: The science which treats of the mechanical action or relations of heat - Webster’s 1948.

Thermodynamics: n. [treated as singular] the branch of physical science that deals with the relations between heat and other forms of energy (such as mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy), and, by extension, of the relationships between all forms of energy.
The first law of thermodynamics states the equivalence of heat and work and reaffirms the principle of conservation of energy. The second law states that heat does not of itself pass from a cooler to a hotter body. Another, equivalent, formulation of the second law is that the entropy of a closed system can only increase. The third law (also called Nernst’s heat theorem) states that it is impossible to reduce the temperature of a system to absolute zero in a finite number of operations - (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/thermodynamics).

(*15) We will later develop in depth this foundational use of history to properly trend current events against presumption and false hopes of undirected favorable outcomes, commonly known as “good luck.”

(*16) The Proposed Bill of Rights’ Preamble:
“Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine [1789]
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz,, to
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. [The proposed twelve Amendments followed]” - The capitalization and punctuation in this typed version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html), which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C. (http://www.archives.gov/nae/visit/).

Ten of those original twelve proposals were ratified and incorporated as part of the U.S. Constitution on December 15, 1791 now known as the Bill of Rights.

(*17) Religion and Morality as Foundations:
“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” - “The Northwest Ordinance”, Article III, July 13, 1787.

“The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue [morality], and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind." - Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 1798.

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God.” - Gouverneur Morris, a writer of the U.S. Constitution, Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III.

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” - John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776 (Source: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401.)

“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.” - George Washington, first U.S. President, “Fairwell Address”, Sept. 17, 1796.

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” - Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1799.

“Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.” - Fisher Ames, (Source: An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” - Charles Carroll, letter to James McHenry of November 4, 1800, (Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475.)

“[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.” - Oliver Ellsworth Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court (Source: Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut).

“I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus [religion] as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.” - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803 (Source: The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377.) Signer of the Declaration of Independence.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams October 11, 1798, signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, (Source: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229.)

“The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best precepts.” - Noah Webster, (Source: History of the United States, "Advice to the Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53, 56.)

“[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.” - Daniel Webster From "The Dignity and Importance of History," February 23, 1852. (Source: The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. XIII, p. 492.)

"[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence [morality]." - Noah Webster.

- Most of these quotes are cited from Wallbuilders.com (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=63).
See also (Posts 050 - 053 “Religion in Government Trial 4 parts” http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/01/part-1-of-4-religion-in-government.html).

This theme was legally held even unto the generation of Darwinism, though the slow preparatory decay seems to have been consistently progressive (*20) as the cancer spread in its early stages or as weeds overtake a garden without constant maintenance.

(*18) The Mayflower Compact -1620:
“In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten,… Having undertaken for the glory of God, and [the] advancement of the christian faith…a voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northern parts of Virginia…” - Transcribed personally from a photocopy representation of the original Governor Bradford copy.

The parts I left out of the quote for clarity of my point clearly show that this was not an act of rebellion against the British crown-- tyrannical as it was.

(*19) On The Conversion of Charles Finney:
“Thus [in spite of the confusion and inconsistency of religion which periodically confronted him] when I went to Adams to study law, I was almost as ignorant of religion as a heathen. I had been brought up mostly in the woods. I had very little regard to the Sabbath, and had no definite knowledge of religious truth.”
“In studying elementary law, I found the old authors frequently quoting the Scriptures, and referring especially to the Mosaic Institutes, as authority for many of the great principles of common law. This excited my curiosity so much that I went and purchased a Bible, the first I had ever owned; and whenever I found a reference by the law authors to the Bible, I turned to the passage and consulted it in its connection. This soon led me to my taking a new interest in the Bible, and I read and meditated on it much more than I had ever done before in my life.” This led to his later conversion to Christ. - Charles G. Finney An Autobiography Fleming H. Revil Company, 1876 copyright renewed 1908, pp.7-8.

(*20) Politics: The following shows a curious example of how a very important word, identifying a dangerously corruptible but important function, is morphed over time to actually become the very meaning of what it once was designed to guard against:

1881 An American Dictionary of the English language by Noah Webster, LL.D. (From my own eyes copied, underline emphasis added) -
• Politie, (123), a. [Fr. politique, It. & Sp. Politico, Lat. Oliticus, Gr [greek letters], belonging to the citizens or to the state, from [greek letters] citizen, from [greek letters] a city.]
1. Political; as, the body politic. - He with his people made all but one politic body. Sidney.
2. Pertaining to or promoting a policy, especially a national policy; well devised; adapted to its end, whether right or wrong; -- said of measures. - This land was famously enriched with politic, grave counsel. Shak.
3. Sagacious in promoting a policy; ingenious in devising and advancing a system of management; principle; hence, in a good sense, wise; prudent; sagacious; and in a bad sense, artful; unscrupulous; cunning; -- said of persons.

• Polities, n. sing. [See POLITIC.] Fr. Politique, Sp. & It. politica, GR. [greek letters] [See Note under MATHEMATICS.]
1. The science of government; that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity; the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals.
2. The management of a political party; the advancement of candidates to office; in a bad sense, artful or dishonest management to secure the success of political measures or party schemes; political trickery.
- When we say that two men are talking politics, we often mean that they are wrangling about some mere party question. F.W. Robertson.

What is the first and almost exclusive concept that is today associated with Politicians? Corruption, Lies, Deception, Dishonesty, schemes and trickery. We never relate the guidance of social morality to politicians, unless it is purely in the negative meaning.
But Politicians-- by the very definition of politic-- are smooth talkers that artfully use and massage the facts with careful phrases to lead the masses to accept their proposals, whether bad or good (I Kings 1:11-14). The art itself, as used today, engenders manipulation only in an immoral way… when the very word itself was once to mean the persuasion of governing care, preservation, and advancement of social morals by encouraging the passage of moral law; i.e. the legislation of morality. Nothing has changed but the foundations of the politicians themselves and the corrupt results they bring into the law by their own skewed moral compass. The morality of the politician therefore becomes the MOST IMPORTANT element of his qualifications! I propose that religion has a similar concept of application.

1948 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 5th edition - (From my own eyes copied):
• Politics, n.; see -ics.
1. The science and art of government.
2. The theory or practice of managing affairs of public policy or of political parties; hence, political affairs, principles, or the like; in a bad sense, dishonest management to secure the success of political candidates or parties.
3. Political affairs viewed as a profession, interest, or the like; as, to enter politics.

Don’t you think it strange how the management of society’s morality and ethics has been entirely removed from the definition? Has the manipulation and management of morality and ethics ceased from the results of politics? Hardly! In fact morality and ethics have been and still are the very target of politics. Moral people don’t need laws to be moral, but unethical people base their morality on whether it is legal or not, desiring laws that are favorable to their immoral desires. In spite of the fact that we often hear: “You can’t legislate morality,” morality is the only thing you can legislate.
Not that a law actually changes the morality of the deed, but that the legislation of the deed changes the actions (morality) of the citizen who lacks self-control. By the potential of relieving the guilt from “legalized” wrongdoing, through the transference of accountability from God to Government, governments should therefore be in step with God’s morality so that those lacking self-control will be aided to obey God by obedience to the Government (I Peter 2:13-16) (II Peter 2:9). Politicians used to have the persuasive power to move the people toward such legislation that would thus help them in this aim. Today it is the same power to move, but in the wrong direction. We do not see righteous politicians today because the people will not tolerate being led in a righteous direction. “Don’t legislate my morality” is the cry that begs for laws that legalize their sins and therefore emotionally pass their guilt to the government… until The Day of Judgment when they will discover that you can’t make laws that are contrary to the Laws of nature and revelation. This is what America used to know.

Now understanding the original meaning of the word politic, we can advance in our study to grasp what the Frenchman Alexander De Tocqueville said was his first-hand analysis of what made America uniquely great and unquestionably superior to all other nations:

“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive one without the other.” -- “The religious atmosphere of the country was the first thing that struck me upon my arrival in the United States. In France, I had seen the spirits of religion and freedom almost always marching in opposite directions, in America, I found them intimately linked together and joined and reigned over the same land… Religion should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions. From the start, politics and religion have agreed and have not since ceased to do so.” - Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy In America, (the first of two volumes) 1835 - sited by The Truth Project Lesson 10.

The Christian religion and God’s morality are the foundations upon which our early citizens and politicians had their lives structured from youth and then conducted their adult labor of educating the next generation of citizens, lawmakers and lawyers to move the minds of men toward decisions of social governance that promoted the honor of the laws of nature and nature’s God (*20b).
Obama, our Congress, and America’s citizens, are not evil by personal planned intention, but rather by designed education from a subverted system that has eliminated by legislation the concept of personal accountability to God.

(*20b) “It appears to me that the gospel not only recognizes the whole moral law, and extends and perfects our knowledge of it, but also enjoins on all mankind the observance of it. Being ordained by a legislator of infinite wisdom and rectitude, and in whom there is “no variableness,” it must be free from imperfection, and therefore never has, nor ever will require amendment or alteration. Hence I conclude that the moral law is exactly the same now that it was before the flood.” - First Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Jay 1816 letter expounding on Biblical view of war. Source: The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Punam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, pp. 391-393, 403-419, letters to John Murray, October 12, 1816 and April 15, 1818. (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=64).

(*21) An Example of Slow Decay:
“The subject of civil government is, in all its aspects, of no little importance… This is not strange; for its influence is felt in every department of human action. It has to do with the peace, the order, the material prosperity of the common wealth; with the rights and liberties of the citizens, and exercises no inconsiderable influence upon the interests of morals and religion. In all these respects, in the last particularly, the institution of civil government is deserving the attention of the Christian and of the Christian minister. Moreover, the inspired writers take occasion, not infrequently, to state… [those] leading principles by which the intelligent and faithful may be directed as to the part which they are to take in setting up, in administering, or in supporting political constitutions.” - James M. Willson (1809-1866) The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government, p.1.

Note: that at this late date of his writing-- only a few years before Darwin’s Evolutionary ideas became “science” and Langdell’s application of it was introduced into American law through the education of our young lawyers-- Morality and Religion no longer rested firmly as the foundation upon which civil governments are built and influenced, but now found themselves influenced by those unfettered governments, and therefore the influence of Christians on the government became defensive rather than leading as was the former practice. The governments now began to teach Christians what was moral and how to interpret God’s laws by usurped authority, much as the Roman Catholic Church.
As evidenced by the need felt for writing Mr. Willson’s book, trouble was apparently already brewing in the American mind regarding the role of morality and religion in/on civil governments and which had authority over which. The general ground of reason was already turned fallow by spiritual neglect, which allowed for the weeds of Evolutionary thought to grow freely without attentive gardeners that were expecting to harvest the good fruit of civil liberty under obedience to the law of God. The result at this phase of decay is confusion, and the transfer of power and authority from a righteous free Christian people to a secular Government ruling over a now unrighteous people who needed a heavier hand of governance because they forgot the untouchable and unchanging laws of nature and nature’s God. Once this social transfer of authority is officially made, the new authority comes with an obligatory compliance from those under its scope, whether individually righteous or not. Thus the loyalty of the reformers in accepting the persecutions of a corrupt government influenced by the murderous Catholic Church, and the loyalty of the Pilgrims to the similarly cruel British crown, for as long as was feasibly possible (Romans 12:18). But being spiritually free to serve God while enslaved in the flesh, they were not likewise willing to submit their spirits to guidance that violated the law of God and so they submitted as obedient citizens to the punishments for not surrendering their souls.
In our Gender Typology perspective, a “free” single young woman who used to answer only to her wise old father as a guiding and loving protector, becomes bound to obey her new “unfamiliar” potentially loveless husband once she marries him. This is life changing. And though marriage is not evil, it is a guarantee for complex troubles that come with valuable advantages in a good choice (I Corinthians 7:28), and unspeakable lifelong sorrows in a bad choice. It is a Typology (I Samuel 8:7).
The freedom of the independent States to serve the Creator as they saw fit under His care, and to call upon His aid and deliverance as needed, was unhindered and uncontested until the implementation of a federal Government that United all the States under a central collective idea and political management for the benefit of the “family.” The authority of the “Father” was replaced by the “Husband” for the promise of physical and emotional advantages gained. Like marriage, this is not sin or evil in itself, but nonetheless to some degree distances that nation from the Creator and his desire to directly interact as before-- as Benjamin Franklin reminded the Constitutional Convention regarding past Divine providence many of them witnessed during the recent war but had forgotten in the work of implementing new authority (*21b).
Surrendering the independent nations to a Global Governance is just one more step in the progressive direction of distancing the interaction of the Father. This has temporal advantages too, but the cost to Liberty and unhindered fellowship with the Maker is historically very high. How much worse when the new Husband literally hates her Father? This is why the God ordained Typology of a father giving or withholding his blessing from his daughter’s marriage to a particular man. There are good governments and bad governments, and the choice itself can be evil and sin while the act of making a choice is not. Don’t marry a bad man because he sweet-talks you and buys you expensive gifts! Go ask your Father’s judgment of his fundamental character first. I am speaking of governments. Please earnestly review I Samuel chapter 12 as an applicable prophetic warning for America.

(*21b) Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention:
“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 understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. 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 that 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 labour 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 little 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 blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service.” - Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787, underline emphasis added (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=98)+(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm). [Note: It is clear that each website has a few varying words here and there, but all retain the consistent thought. This version is a “correction” by reviewing several various copies and using common sense to conclude which incident is most probably accurate, until I can locate a more direct and trustworthy copy, that very probably does not exist].

(*22) faux- foe; new American slang, as in faux fur: any material made of synthetic fibers designed to resemble fur. (wikipedia.org/wiki/fake_fur)
Comparative words; fake, pretend, quasi-, impostor, supplanter.
*