The article below appeared in today's World Net Daily. This is for me the ultimate reason for secession, NOW! The federal judicary, against all law and precedent, is determined to affect the systematic secularization of the U.S. and to deprive the people and states of the most basic right to express thier faith in God in public places, including - maybe even especially - government owned land.

Liberty cannot be sustained without moral courage and resolution. There is no adequate source for the moral courage necessary to sustain liberty where there is no Christianity. Just look at the globe. Only where Chritianity is vividly alive are the people genuinely free. Tyrants fear many things, but they fear abiding faith in Christ most, for it is here they encounter the one spark in the human spirit they cannot extinguish or put out. Little wonder the federal government wages a campaign to crush out Christianity - unless and until they emmasculate America's Christian heritage and faith, they cannot enslave the nation.

When the revolt finally comes, it won't be the atheists leading the march, but humble, law-abiding, church-attending men of God!

LAW OF THE LAND
Christian cross complaint targets nation's faith factor
Campaign assembled to protect recognition of veterans' sacrifices

________________________________________
Posted: May 21, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A cross erected in the remote Arizona desert by U.S. veterans in memory of their lost World War I buddies has become the focal point for an effort by the American Civil Liberties Union to eradicate references to Christianity from America's heritage.

But now a campaign has been assembled to fight back, to honor the veterans who have kept the nation safe for generations and to endorse the right of the public to acknowledge those efforts.

Liberty Legal Institute has launched a new website called Don't Tear Me Down that describes the attack on the cross in the desert, which now needs a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or faces demolition.

The Mojave Desert Memorial Cross has stood for more than 75 years in honor of America's lost soldiers. It was erected in 1934 by World War I veterans who saw the image of a doughboy in the shadows on the stone hillside and wanted a place to remember their lost trench-mates from the big war.
But the ACLU, representing a man from Oregon who has alleged he might drive on the desert road in Arizona and might be offended by the cross, has won lower court rulings that the cross must cease to exist.

The Don’t Tear Me Down campaign is intended to let the public know of the attack on America's heritage and generate a groundswell of support for the cross. Liberty Legal has announced a news conference tomorrow to formally launch the effort.

WND reported earlier when the U.S. Supreme Court decided to rule in the case.

The Mojave cross
Attorneys with the Liberty Legal Institute which calls the case a "microcosm" of the trend of hostility towards veterans' memorials in the U.S, say the impact will reach many more memorials than just the one in Arizona. They earlier set up a SaveOurMemorials.com website to warn about the situation.

Besides the Mojave Desert cross, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered destroyed, there also has been pending dispute over the Mt. Soledad memorial where an atheist sued for the removal of a cross image, a recent attempt by a religious group called Summum that could have forced the removal of donated Ten Commandments monuments in Utah, an attempt to take the Ten Commandments away from a historic location in Texas, and the order to remove a Ten Commandments reference in Kentucky.
In the Mojave Desert cross dispute, Liberty Legal filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart and others seeking permission for the cross to remain because the land on which it stands originally had been owned by the VFW, which donated it to the government in the 1930s.
The organization responded to the court ruling by donating five acres of land to the government and submitting a request that it be allowed to retrieve the monument. A court shot down the plan.

"It is bad enough to say that the veterans’ memorial is unconstitutional, but it is outrageous to say that the government cannot give the monument back to the people who spilled their blood and put it there in the first place,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute and attorney for the veterans groups. The cross was covered in a bag when the court's ruling was released, and later encased in a plywood box so that no one could inadvertently see the representation of Christianity, officials said.

According to the campaign, "If they win and succeed in tearing down this monument, what's next? Imagine what could happen at the Arlington National Cemetery. Will they put bags over all the crosses that mark the graves of our fallen heroes? … We believe America should remember and honor her veterans; and were taking our case to the U.S. Supreme Court to tell the ACLU that they can't tear down our freedom!"

According to a video on the Don’t Tear Me Down campaign website, the veterans of World War I chose the rock because of the image of a doughboy that appears in the rock's creased face under certain light conditions.
Veteran Henry Sandoz and his wife, Wanda, have volunteered their time for years to keep up the site.

The campaign warns, "Across America, our precious war memorials are under attack by liberal groups such as the ACLU. These left-wing extremists want to REMOVE ALL public tributes to the brave men and women who gave their lives for freedom simply because these memorials use Scripture, crosses and other religious symbols."

The outcome of the court case "will determine if we can continue to honor and respect our veterans, or if we must wipe their memories from the public square. If not overturned, this case will impact every veterans' memorial and those they were built to remember," the organization said.
"This is a critical case that will once again put the spotlight on the constitutionality of religious displays and the proper role of the government and its actions," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.

"The fact is that the land transfer in this case is appropriate and constitutional. There's nothing wrong with the government transferring property containing symbols with religious significance to private parties. We're hopeful that the high court will conclude that the long-standing display of this cross does not create a constitutional crisis and that the action by the federal government represented a constitutionally-sound solution," Sekulow said.

In a commentary on WND, Rees Lloyd, a longtime California civil rights attorney, veteran and director of the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project, said the same issues also were involved in the longrunning Mt. Soledad Memorial case. Lloyd said judges who are not accountable to the people should not be able to overrule what people want. In the Mt. Soledad case, not only was the memorial approved by voters, Congress and the president agreed to protect it, only to be overruled by a single judge.
In the 17-year-long Mt. Soledad case, a judge eventually said the veterans memorial near San Diego is constitutional and can remain.

"When the cross is considered in the context of the larger memorial and especially the numerous other secular elements, the primary effect is patriotic and nationalistic, not religious," wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns.

"The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," he said.

PHL wrote: "Liberty cannot be sustained without moral courage and resolution. There is no adequate source for the moral courage necessary to sustain liberty where there is no Christianity."

George Washington had this to say -

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports...let us indulge with caution the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." - GW's Farewell Address

The article below appeared in today's World Net Daily. This is for me the ultimate reason for secession, NOW! The federal judicary, against all law and precedent, is determined to affect the systematic secularization of the U.S. and to deprive the people and states of the most basic right to express thier faith in God in public places, including - maybe even especially - government owned land.

Liberty cannot be sustained without moral courage and resolution. There is no adequate source for the moral courage necessary to sustain liberty where there is no Christianity. Just look at the globe. Only where Chritianity is vividly alive are the people genuinely free. Tyrants fear many things, but they fear abiding faith in Christ most, for it is here they encounter the one spark in the human spirit they cannot extinguish or put out. Little wonder the federal government wages a campaign to crush out Christianity - unless and until they emmasculate America's Christian heritage and faith, they cannot enslave the nation.

When the revolt finally comes, it won't be the atheists leading the march, but humble, law-abiding, church-attending men of God!

LAW OF THE LAND
Christian cross complaint targets nation's faith factor
Campaign assembled to protect recognition of veterans' sacrifices

________________________________________
Posted: May 21, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A cross erected in the remote Arizona desert by U.S. veterans in memory of their lost World War I buddies has become the focal point for an effort by the American Civil Liberties Union to eradicate references to Christianity from America's heritage.

But now a campaign has been assembled to fight back, to honor the veterans who have kept the nation safe for generations and to endorse the right of the public to acknowledge those efforts.

Liberty Legal Institute has launched a new website called Don't Tear Me Down that describes the attack on the cross in the desert, which now needs a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or faces demolition.

The Mojave Desert Memorial Cross has stood for more than 75 years in honor of America's lost soldiers. It was erected in 1934 by World War I veterans who saw the image of a doughboy in the shadows on the stone hillside and wanted a place to remember their lost trench-mates from the big war.
But the ACLU, representing a man from Oregon who has alleged he might drive on the desert road in Arizona and might be offended by the cross, has won lower court rulings that the cross must cease to exist.

The Don’t Tear Me Down campaign is intended to let the public know of the attack on America's heritage and generate a groundswell of support for the cross. Liberty Legal has announced a news conference tomorrow to formally launch the effort.

WND reported earlier when the U.S. Supreme Court decided to rule in the case.

The Mojave cross
Attorneys with the Liberty Legal Institute which calls the case a "microcosm" of the trend of hostility towards veterans' memorials in the U.S, say the impact will reach many more memorials than just the one in Arizona. They earlier set up a SaveOurMemorials.com website to warn about the situation.

Besides the Mojave Desert cross, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered destroyed, there also has been pending dispute over the Mt. Soledad memorial where an atheist sued for the removal of a cross image, a recent attempt by a religious group called Summum that could have forced the removal of donated Ten Commandments monuments in Utah, an attempt to take the Ten Commandments away from a historic location in Texas, and the order to remove a Ten Commandments reference in Kentucky.
In the Mojave Desert cross dispute, Liberty Legal filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart and others seeking permission for the cross to remain because the land on which it stands originally had been owned by the VFW, which donated it to the government in the 1930s.
The organization responded to the court ruling by donating five acres of land to the government and submitting a request that it be allowed to retrieve the monument. A court shot down the plan.

"It is bad enough to say that the veterans’ memorial is unconstitutional, but it is outrageous to say that the government cannot give the monument back to the people who spilled their blood and put it there in the first place,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute and attorney for the veterans groups. The cross was covered in a bag when the court's ruling was released, and later encased in a plywood box so that no one could inadvertently see the representation of Christianity, officials said.

According to the campaign, "If they win and succeed in tearing down this monument, what's next? Imagine what could happen at the Arlington National Cemetery. Will they put bags over all the crosses that mark the graves of our fallen heroes? … We believe America should remember and honor her veterans; and were taking our case to the U.S. Supreme Court to tell the ACLU that they can't tear down our freedom!"

According to a video on the Don’t Tear Me Down campaign website, the veterans of World War I chose the rock because of the image of a doughboy that appears in the rock's creased face under certain light conditions.
Veteran Henry Sandoz and his wife, Wanda, have volunteered their time for years to keep up the site.

The campaign warns, "Across America, our precious war memorials are under attack by liberal groups such as the ACLU. These left-wing extremists want to REMOVE ALL public tributes to the brave men and women who gave their lives for freedom simply because these memorials use Scripture, crosses and other religious symbols."

The outcome of the court case "will determine if we can continue to honor and respect our veterans, or if we must wipe their memories from the public square. If not overturned, this case will impact every veterans' memorial and those they were built to remember," the organization said.
"This is a critical case that will once again put the spotlight on the constitutionality of religious displays and the proper role of the government and its actions," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.

"The fact is that the land transfer in this case is appropriate and constitutional. There's nothing wrong with the government transferring property containing symbols with religious significance to private parties. We're hopeful that the high court will conclude that the long-standing display of this cross does not create a constitutional crisis and that the action by the federal government represented a constitutionally-sound solution," Sekulow said.

In a commentary on WND, Rees Lloyd, a longtime California civil rights attorney, veteran and director of the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project, said the same issues also were involved in the longrunning Mt. Soledad Memorial case. Lloyd said judges who are not accountable to the people should not be able to overrule what people want. In the Mt. Soledad case, not only was the memorial approved by voters, Congress and the president agreed to protect it, only to be overruled by a single judge.
In the 17-year-long Mt. Soledad case, a judge eventually said the veterans memorial near San Diego is constitutional and can remain.

"When the cross is considered in the context of the larger memorial and especially the numerous other secular elements, the primary effect is patriotic and nationalistic, not religious," wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns.

"The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," he said.

One of the issues with the Commerce clause rises vis-a-vis the States is the similarity of the power possessed to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Congress has power to exclude from import foreign products made with slave labor, government subsidies, or that threaten important domestic industries, or present a danger to the public, etc. This power as to foreign governments when applied to commerce among the states means, at least potentially (and historically) that Congress can exclude entirely any product it wants (hopefully for a rational reason). For example, oleo margerine used to be a common commodity, but was consigned to oblivion by Congress, for health reasons if I recall (or was it because this was a whale product, I don't recall). One would have to assume that as sovereign states could exclude injurious products from their markets, so Congress can exclude their movement between the States. It is a very difficult area, but we can all agree that Congress has HUGELY over-reached the power given by the Constitution, though precisely what limits ought to be placed on it needs debate.

Very far off! Dictating product requirements and features, etc. is not a roll for the federal government.

The commerece clause presents some of the greatest usurpations and some of the greatest temptations to over-leap the Constitution there are. If California wants to set fuel emission standards higher than State "A", the auto-makers whine to Congress that California's separate standards are impeding interstate commerce. Congress thus steps in to set uniform standards binding on all. So-long California sovereignty! And so it goes. there is a huge need to define precisely Congress' power under the Art. I sec 8 to prevent it from intruding in areas reserved to the states. But it can only be done by a constitutional amendment, and that will have to originate with the States since Congress will never yield the power willingly.

It should be noted that the regulation of interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution was originally set up to prevent inter-state trade wars and excessive tariffs between states. It has been corrupted by the federal government to give them more power.

I expect that at least a couple of the States will begin taking additional measures should the Lower Government fail to heed the warning.

Possible measures might include:

1)Instructing State and local Law Enforcement not to comply with Federal Police. Up to and requiring Feds to seek a State judge before attempting to exercise any Federal Warrants.

2)Legislation nullifying the 16th Amendment.

3)Recall of the State's Residents enlisted in the US Military.

4)Legislation indicting current Federal officials for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as stated in the Constitution.

5)Further enhancement of the Second Amendment rights, including volunteer training from the State for residents.

6)Secession.

Now, obviously some of these are relatively unlikely. Indeed, number 3 might be downright impossible to actually do, but could be used to send a message.

Numbers 1 and 2 however are fairly likely. Number 5 would be entirely likely if the State begins to seriously plan for number 6.

At this stage of course, predictions are just that, predictions. History does tell us that you can only press people so far before they will stand up. We are rapidly approaching the point of no-return.

"There are 35 State legislatures passing 10th Amendment Resolutions."

Not "passing," but introducing. There is much work still to be done.

There are 35 State legislatures passing 10th Amendment Resolutions. That is enough to demand an Convention for proposing amendments. The votes are there if the determination to pursue the issue is. To do nothing is to involve us all in ruin. The States need to take to the next level if the fed-gov fails to accept their reasonable demands.

The fact of the matter is that no matter which direction you go, you get there with votes. So, how do you propose to get those votes?

Well, the point is we should be thinking about how strong our commitment to restoring States' Rights really is. Is it strong enough to secede? To work toward a Constitutional Convention? Or do we just weakly give up and give in, like we have done in the past? Important stuff!

No telling, Patrick. We'll just have to see when we get there. As Springsteen says, "You can't start a fire without a spark."

What happens when/if the Fed's ignor the State's pleas? What then? Moreover, even if the Fed's back off for a while, what is to prvent a renewal of usurpations once the States have turned their attention back to other things? I think the Resolutions are great, but ultimately the States and people need to be thinking about their options when their entreaties go ignored.

I think each of the state representatives should use their voting blocks to make changes in Congress. They already have quite a following. Therefore, all they need to do is get their loyal constituents to understand the states' rights issues and vote accordingly. State legislators could easily use their voting blocks to change Congress if they focused on doing so.

I think it's awesome that legislators are starting to turn towards and talk about the constitution. If I were in Indiana, I'd be proud to have you as my senator, Mr Stutzman!