Defining American Greatness

[From article]
The key question before us is determining what we mean by greatness. There are those who associate greatness with bigness, power, or quantity. Thus, America is great because of her vast size, massive economic production or unmatched military might. These can truly be characteristics of great nations but they are not what make a nation great.
There are others who believe the foundation of our greatness is based on the many opportunities to enjoy life in America. They point to our American way of life in which people are encouraged to enjoy life to its fullest. Still others interpret greatness as the freedom to do whatever one pleases. All these goals often reflect legitimate self-interest, but do not necessarily confer greatness upon a nation.
If our greatness is measured by money, pleasure or self-aggrandizement, then our striving for greatness, no matter how vigorous, will inevitably fall short. For the greatness of nations is not found in things, quantities, or delights, but in the character of its people.
Indeed, true greatness -- that which endures the test of time -- is born of a willingness to go beyond the common and ordinary. It calls us to excel, to take heroic action and to serve causes that take us beyond ourselves. It asks us to resist the temptation to sink into soft mediocrity.
America is great because there have always been, and still are, those who are willing to take up the challenges of going beyond the easy and comfortable. As long as such Americans may be found at all levels in society, we will continue to be great.
And so I believe America is great because there still exists dedicated fathers and loving mothers who sacrifice together to give their children strong character and instill in them the difference between right and wrong.
[. . .]
As long as honor holds a place in our hearts, we will produce heroes with the courage to fight for what we know to be true and right. We will even have those who will make the sublime sacrifice of offering their lives for their country.
America will be great as long as we strive to be truly good. True goodness means placing God in the center of society, holding to His commandments as the rule of life and defending this higher law in the public square. We can be great -- and expect God’s blessing -- only if we remain faithful to a God that is almighty and great.
[. . .]



However, the number of these Americans is fast dwindling as everything is being swept away by the frenetic intemperance of a society that thrives on instant gratification and spectacle. They are replaced by gaggles of shallow people, devoid of honor and character, who seek only to turn life into a huge carnival of fun and delights.
In these perilous times, many caricatures of greatness appear. The rule of honor is usurped by the rule of money. Greatness comes to signify vulgar displays of wealth, pleasure and power. A “great” person is one who does whatever it takes to keep the grand party going. Tragically, it can even mean severing our link with God when it obstructs the easy pursuit of whatever.
[. . .]
The questions that need to be addressed today are not those of taxes, jobs, economy or benefits. Although they are all important issues, they can more easily be resolved when sanity returns to the nation. We now enter a critical time when we must choose the path of true greatness over false, honor over money, God over the world. If we ardently desire a return to order, then we must be convinced that America can only be great if she is good and Godly. What will decide America’s future will be what has always decide her future -- the character of her people.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/03/what_it_means_for_america_to_be_great.html

April 3, 2016
What It Means for America to Be Great
By John Horvat II

Abuse of First Amendment Due to Ignorance. What Else Is New?

[From article]
The hysterical, politically correct outburst following Donald Trump's idea of barring Muslims from abroad produced much emotion and wacky claims, including the protest that barring someone based on his religion is unconstitutional according to the 1st Amendment.
The ignorance here is shocking. The rights, privileges and obligations of a U.S. citizen are simply inapplicable to non-citizen foreigners.
[. . .]
Today's standard, politically correct interpretation is that the purpose of the 1st Amendment was to make of the new United States an irreligious republic when that was nowhere near its original intent.
The principal, actually innocent catalyst for this misinterpretation lies in the evolution of language over time.
[. . .]
in colonial America, each colony (except for Rhode Island) had an official church in the same way England and every other European country had one. For example, Pennsylvania was the "Quaker State"; in Massachusetts, the Congregationalists dominated; in Virginia, the Church of England was official
[. . .]
when some revolutionaries wanted to disestablish an official government church, and were opposed, the opponents' philosophy was called antidisestablishmentarianism.
[. . .]
it was most logical to decide that the new United States of America would have no official church, no official religion to administer religious life in America. Religion was none of the government's business.
[. . .]
The Framers wanted limited government in many fields, and religion was one of them.
[. . .]
the language and purpose of the 1st Amendment was to create a republic of not atheists, but free individuals whose religious life was theirs alone to live.
Those who think the first words of the 1st Amendment call for an areligious society are all wet.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_first_amendment_recovered.html

December 21, 2015
The First Amendment (Recovered)
By Sha'i ben-Tekoa

New US House Speaker Clueless About First Amendment

US House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Bill Clark AP Photo

[From article]

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) evidently believes there is a constitutional right to emigrate to this country. In addition, he appears to believe that the First Amendment of religious freedom applies to everyone in the world and compels us to bring in anyone from every religion, irrespective of the problems endemic in some of its practitioners.
Take a look at this clip from Sean Hannity’s show last night and understand that we have no opposition party in Congress:
[. . .]
Ryan is essentially saying we have a First Amendment directive to A) bring in everyone to this country and B) not be selective based on religion.
Mr. Ryan, the entire founding of this country was predicated on fleeing a theocracy and settling a land where everyone can freely practice their religion as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone. Sharia law is the antithesis of that religious freedom because it foments a totalitarian mindset based on a theocracy. 

[. . .]

Let’s be clear, everyone admitted into our country has the right to peacefully adhere to their religion. That includes Muslims, and as social conservatives, we certainly appreciate that a lot more than the secular Left. However, there is no affirmative right to emigrate here. And the notion that we will continue to bring in mass numbers of people who subscribe to the very mentality we are seeing in Europe that represents the antithesis of religious liberty and the epitome of compulsion that seeks to trespass on the rights of others is an anathema to our Founding values.
That we have the leader of House Republicans who doesn’t understand the basic tenets of popular sovereignty, jurisdictional sovereignty, the social contract, the First Amendment, religious liberty, and the realities of Islamic supremacism, should scare us all.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/paul-ryans-breathtaking-ignorance-of-religious-liberty-and-immigration

PAUL RYAN’S BREATHTAKING IGNORANCE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND IMMIGRATION
By: Daniel Horowitz

November 19th, 2015

https://youtu.be/YwXn8X9MbNw

Rule Of Law Versus The Rule Of Cults

[From article]
On one hand, because conservatives believe in the rule of law there is a natural tendency to say that even if we, especially government officials, don’t like a Supreme Court ruling we have to abide by it.
On the other hand, there’s the fact that liberals constantly break the law with impunity. For example, Jerry Brown refused to defend Prop 8 and Obama refused to enforce DOMA yet neither are in jail.
Essentially the question is should conservatives accept rule of law for conservatives but not for liberals?
The sad reality is that rule of law -- that the laws apply equally to all Americans -- no longer exists in America. Obama’s imperial presidency, sanctuary cities, and the liberal establishments refusal to enforce laws they don’t like means that the law does not apply equally, even in principle, to all Americans.
[. . .]
The question then is: is it worse to accept chaos? Liberals and conservatives both ignoring certain laws, or tyranny, only liberals get to ignore the laws they don’t like.
Clearly good conservatives can disagree on which option is better.
[. . .]
We’ve already seen Catholic adoption organizations with great records for helping kids shut down because they won’t put kids into gay “families”. Just recently a Catholic organization with an amazing record of helping women who were being sex trafficked was forced to stop because it wouldn’t refer those women for abortions.
[. . .]
we need to keep in mind that liberals have demonstrated that they don’t believe in the rule of law. We’re not fighting with honorable men but with people who believe they are better than the rest of us.
We are in an ideological conflict with liberals who are at heart monarchists or oligarchists. Liberals reject the rule of law because they believe that they are right and that we should all be forced to live as liberals wish us to live.
[. . .]
The question we face is what is the best path to get us back to an America where the rule of law applies to everyone and where laws come from the political process not judicial edicts.
While the answer is not obvious it would seem true to say that it’s easier to get to freedom from chaos than from tyranny since in chaos neither side has the full power of government while in tyranny one side does.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/liberalism_and_optional_law.html

September 6, 2015
Liberalism and Option
By Tom Trinko

Ohio Judge Refuses To Perform Same Sex Marriage Based on His Religious Beliefs

Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell 

[From article]
A northwest Ohio municipal judge assigned to a courtroom where civil marriages are performed refused to marry two women less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, the judge’s office confirmed on Wednesday.
Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell was on a three-week rotation assigned to perform civil ceremonies on Monday when Carolyn Wilson and her partner asked to be married. McConnell acknowledged the decision in a Wednesday statement.
“On Monday, July 6, I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment,” he said. “The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best.”
[. . .]
McConnell said he will continue to perform “traditional marriages” and is, “seeking an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio” about whether he can “opt out of the rotation” that would have him perform civil marriages.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/08/0708-Toledo-judge-refuses-to-perform-gay-marriage.html

Toledo judge refuses to perform gay marriage
By Kim Palmer
Reuters

Wednesday July 8, 2015 12:21 PM

Palin Defends Duck Dynasty TV Star's Religious Beliefs

[From article]
Sarah Palin says the suspension of one of the stars of the show “Duck Dynasty” over recent anti-gay comments he made is an attack on free speech.
Palin re-posted a picture of her meeting with the stars of the A&E show on her Facebook page Wednesday night, writing that “intolerants” were behind the suspension of the show’s patriarch, Phil Robertson.
“Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us,” Palin wrote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/sarah-palin-duck-dynasty-defense-101319.html?hp=r11

Sarah Palin defends 'Duck Dynasty' star
By TAL KOPAN

12/19/13 6:10 AM EST

Politico

Punishing Religious Beliefs

[From article]
It is even worse, of course, when it is the government that penalizes those who hold Biblical views. That should be anathema in America. While A&E exercised its rights, in a growing number of incidents, government has not respected the free-contract and free-speech rights of Americans.
[. . .]
These and other laws are creating a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that we are created male and female, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage. These state and local laws are used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366791/penalizing-those-who-hold-biblical-views-marriage-ryan-t-anderson

Penalizing Those Who Hold Biblical Views of Marriage
By Ryan T. Anderson
December 19, 2013 4:07 PM

National Review

Islam Conflicts With Religious Freedom

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/new-german-minister-islam-does-not-belong-in-germany-1.347329

New German minister: Islam does not belong in Germany
Hans-Peter Friedrich's comment comes in context of probe into killing of two U.S. airmen at Frankfurt Airport believed to be motivated by radical Islamist beliefs.
By Danna Harman
Haaretz
Published 01:53 06.03.11
Latest update 01:53 06.03.11

Government Official Threatens Bible Study Group

http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html

San Diego News
Bible Study Controversy
Couple: County Trying To Stop Home Bible Studies
10News.com
POSTED: 5:31 pm PDT May 25, 2009
UPDATED: 1:45 pm PDT May 28, 2009