The reason America has the trillion dollar war monger Obama as president today is because of immorality and materialism in America. President John Adams once said,

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -October 11, 1798.

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible" - George Washington.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

The revisionist historians have tried to "cover up" God himself by not allowing recent generations to know that America was once a nation of religious people. Now, over half the people in America are not well informed and are willing to believe the spoon fed propaganda from the Democrats and Republicans.

The Democrats and Republicans are notorious for wanting to stay in power. Their worshipers get their education from TV and their friends. In the future, after it becomes obvious that their plan failed, these "useful idiots" will still blame Bush for the economy, overlook Obama as they overlooked Clinton's mistakes or think their vote counts and they actually have freedom while approving of wars overseas. Such people are the product of America's decaying society whose reality has been warped by drugs and other selfish pleasures. America has gradually become worse from the drugs, rock and roll of the 60′s and 70′s to the drugs and rap music of today. The communists won while Americans smoked pot.

The alienation of God in society began in the classroom. Today, blasphemies can easily be seen on TV and the cinema. Hollywood portrays the sane as the insane. The abnormal and perverted as normal. The unborn babies are seen as nothing. The silent h0Ɩ0cαųst continues. Is it any wonder America is in trouble?

The economy destroyed by white collar crimes were done by men of immoral character. They are not personally responsible for all of America's failings but are a symptom of America's spiritual illness most commonly referred to in previous centuries as "sin". This is the connection that most fail to see. Where there is no God there is chaos.

We are seeing that now. Abortions financed through tax dollars now total 50 million babies killed. Their blood cries out to Heaven while Hollywood justifies abortion and some women call it a choice. Yes, a choice to kill infants without even taking the time to see what they have destroyed. They willingly blind themselves to the truth. Or do their sins blind them? The other half of America stands against this evil tide with constant prayer while their public protests are not completely shown by the American media.

"Freedom of the press" means the media will be free to report what it wants you to know. ABC, CBS, NBC , MSNBC, CNN and even Fox are similar to the Communist Soviet Union's "Pravda". You are now in an atheistic society as the Soviet Union once was. Pravda online has become more news worthy now as Christianity flourishes. Patriarch Kirill said:

"The world should see the Orthodox Russia's great feat of rebuilding all that was destroyed"

Russia once was swept with an even more horrific terror across its land. There is no comparison in the past sufferings of Russia and the turmoil of America. However, it is interesting to note that the number of deaths are equal to Russia's when including the aborted children in America.

When Alexander Solzhenitsyn came to America he warned the US in the 70′s:

"Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil" (speech to Harvard 1978).

The American press laughed at him and turned a deaf ear at his observations of America's immorality and materialism. Solzhenitsyn also warned long ago of today's socialism:

"A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current."

The danger is already here and the situation is much, much worse. Thus, Obama can try putting duct tape on a sinking ship but only when most Americans turn to God will the storm subside. Only then will America be able to fix the problem. Remember:

"Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." -William Penn (American hero of Liberty and religious freedom).

" We've staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart." - James Madison, 1778, to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia.

The Communists took over America after JFK was shot. American society then took a sharp nose dive into Hell. With the presidential elections rigged there was no stopping their agenda. Call it Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. It's all the same.

They want you to depend on the government instead of God. Welcome to the USSA

Xavier Lerma

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-11-2012/122728-obama_president-0/

"The Communists took over America after JFK was shot..."

Uh long before that, Communists were here making public policy even back in the 1900's. We all know who started Marxism in the first place...

Also why is it that government is seen as such an "evil"? I am not sure what more government power has to do with not believing in God. Government can be used for good.

As a Catholic I don't know if it is such a good thing to be quoting American Freemasons.

I don't think that big government = not believing in God so much as it is that NOT believing in God = the need for big gov't.  If people are not willing to "govern" themselves by behaving in a moral fashion, gov't will be there to enforce more laws to deal with the immorality(lawlessness)of the people.

The founding fathers did understand the need for moral behavior even though they may not have believed in the God of the Bible.  I think that many of them had at least the natural virtues, and understood natural law even if they were Freemasons.  I don't know how someone could discuss the founding of our country and not quote those men regardless of whether they were Masons or not.  I think Matthew's quotes demonstrate that even a blind pig can find an acorn now and again.

Yes, government is a good thing, but it must be kept as small and unintrusive as possible.  The idea of limited government is actually in the Constitution, but has been ignored for many generations.  I think that limited government is also what the Church teaches as the ideal situation. (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

Marsha

Please don't mistake my reply - I am not advocating the following, but found his argument compelling in parts.  I'd appreciate a discussion from ya'll - much wiser than I!  

http://www.garynorth.com

The U.S. Constitution: Tool of Centralization and Debt, 1788-Today
Gary North

April 4, 2011

On a conservative site last week, the editor wrote this:

    While the Constitution has been largely ignored over the last 80 years, the docuмent is very real, and its purpose is clear: to limit greatly the powers of the federal government.

Having said this, he went on to a conclusion:

    If Congress proves unwilling to force indiscriminate cost reductions on government then it should apply constitutional principles to the budget whereby government functions not enumerated in the Constitution are abolished, privatized, or passed to the states.

When we begin with a myth, we have a tendency to expect miracles. Let me explain.

The Constitution was established in order to strengthen the powers of the Federal government. It strengthened them vastly beyond what the British had attempted to impose on the colonies in the early 1770s.

Before the American Revolution, the British level of taxation on the colonies was in the range of 1%. There were sales taxes on imported goods, but most people, then as now, bought domestically produced goods. There were taxes on paper after 1765. This affected mainly lawyers and newspaper publishers. By alienating these two influential groups, the Parliament stirred up a hornets' nest. When professional talkers and writers get squeezed by the government, the public gets an earful. "The end of liberty is nigh!" On the contrary, the end of a debt-free colonial governments was drawing nigh.

Revolutions must be financed. They are always financed with debt and fiat money. Creditors buy the IOUs with good money, then weaker money, and then -- at the end of the revolt -- worthless money. Then they have a supreme political goal: to get the new government to pay off the worthless IOUs at face value in gold or silver. In the 1780s, it was silver.

The Constitution was deliberately designed to centralize power vastly beyond what the legitimate constitution -- the Articles of Confederation -- allowed. The Federal government in 1787 was weak. In 1788, it was vastly stronger.

The newly created Federal government immediately did two things. It accepted responsibility to pay off state debts. This was Alexander Hamilton's proposal. He proposed it specifically to centralize the government by granting enormous profits to the investment class that had bought state debts for practically nothing.

The Wikipedia article on this consolidation of Federal debt is accurate in its discussion of Hamilton's motives.

    Hamilton's economic plan had multiple goals. First, the debts and honor of the nation would be secured. Hamilton felt that the Federal government would not be able to borrow money from anyone in the future if these debts were not paid. By selling bonds to pay the debt, bondholders would have a direct financial interest to help the new United States government survive and thrive. Creditors who purchased the bonds could use them as collateral for loans, stimulating the economy even more.

    The plan would also create a bureaucracy of agents across the country who would be tied to the Federal government instead of the individual states. Assuming the debts of the states would likewise couple financial elites in those states to the national government and less so to state governments, thereby reducing the risk of secession. Hamilton's scheme was called "debt assumption plan," and it was a radical idea in 1790.

    Hamilton's Report supported ideas of war debt assumption, redemption of Confederate securities at face value, and funding of new national securities as a permanent national debt. Hamilton reasoned that creating a large financial structure, which wealthy citizens would support and belong to, would enhance the revenue and fiscal system of the national government and bring prosperity to the Federal government. He also reckoned that failure to establish the creditworthiness of the Federal government would weaken the United States, and called a permanent, reasonably-sized public debt "the powerful cement of our Union."

Hamilton's statements at the time were quite frank about all this.

When Madison and Jefferson opposed the plan, Hamilton bought them off by promising to support the swamp today known as Washington D.C. as the nation's Capitol. This was done at a private dinner with only the three in attendance. Jefferson later wrote about it.

Here was the outcome:

    The Treasury Department quickly grew in stature and personnel, encompassing the United States Customs Service, the United States Revenue Cutter Service, and the network of Treasury agents Hamilton had foreseen. Hamilton immediately followed up his success with the Second Report on Public Credit, containing his plan for the Bank of the United States --- a national, privately-operated bank owned in part by the government, which became the forerunner of the Federal Reserve System. In 1791 Hamilton released a third report, the Report on Manufactures, which encouraged the growth and protection of manufacturing.

By 1791, Hamilton had created a vast Federal debt and the nation's first central bank, owned privately.

He had planned it from the beginning. That was why he promoted the Constitution. This was why he wrote most of The Federalist Papers.

The anti-Federalists predicted accurately what was coming in 1787. It came.

There was a conspiracy in Philadelphia in 1787. It was successful. I have written a book on this: Conspiracy in Philadelphia. You can download it for free here.

To understand the expansion of Federal power in 1788, consider this. In 1786, the Federal government's total army was 1,200 men. It was too small come to the rescue of the state of Massachusetts in putting down Shays' rebellion. This was a rebellion by rural counties against the state government's decision in 1786 to pay off state debts in silver, collected from the counties. The governor and most of the members of the legislature had bought these debts for pennies in fiat currency. Now they were about to get very rich at the expense of rural taxpayers, who had little silver. A lot of counties revolted.

That was the trigger that got George Washington to attend the Convention, which he had previously refused to agree to attend. He had been completely misinformed about the motives of the protest. A former general of his sent him letters that concealed the politics of the revolt. Read my article on this revolt: "John Hancock's Big Toe."

In 1794, Washington personally led an army of 13,000 to crush a tax revolt in Western Pennsylvania. This was the first and last time a President ever led troops into action. Because so few men volunteered, the Federal government imposed a draft. This was the whiskey rebellion.

The revolt was against Hamilton's 1791 tax on whiskey -- a tax used to raise revenues to pay off Federal debts at face value -- debts that the holders had purchased for pennies. If this sounds like a replay of Shays' rebellion and its outcome, that's because it was, but on a far larger scale.

Centralized power? I guess so.

What Hamilton didn't do, Federalist Party Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshal did do, 1801-1836. Among other things, he wrote the opinion for McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which authorized the privately owned Second Bank of the United States to exercise a government-granted monopoly over the monetary system.

In only one fiscal year, 1836, has the U.S. government ever been debt-free.

The Constitution was from day one an instrument to consolidate Federal power and expand it. The Constitution has proven to be a weak reed in every attempt to slow down the expansion of Federal power. It has proven utterly impotent to roll Federal power back as little as a decade, ever.

Therefore, the following is just plain silly, politically speaking:

    If Congress proves unwilling to force indiscriminate cost reductions on government then it should apply constitutional principles to the budget whereby government functions not enumerated in the Constitution are abolished, privatized, or passed to the states.

I would of course love to see this. But I am unaware of any fiscal year since 1790 in which such a roll-back of Federal employment and Federal spending took place, other than after a major war, when the soldiers were de-commissioned and taxes were cut. If we are talking about civilian employment by the Federal government, I am unaware of any permanent reduction, ever.

There should come a time when the victims of a myth should figure out that they are the victims of a rich and powerful ruling class, which hires the teachers and screens the textbooks to keep the voters docile. But this dawning of enlightenment has yet to come.

When Washington's checks finally bounce, the day of enlightenment will come of necessity, not principle. Then we will have a shot at abandoning the myth of the Constitution as a restraint on Washington's power.

The Church certainly doesn't advocate for a police state.

It might recommend censoring materials that can harm public faith and morals -- but that's a good thing.

Beyond that, the Church would discourage but not FORCE us to not commit sin.

After all, God gave us free will; He wants to see if we want Him or ourselves. We have to be given the chance to choose.

A "police state" is a term that comes from the Austrian School of Economics and other liberal thought.

Lest we forget the government does not force Hollywood to put out the vile stuff it does, does not force abortions, does not force contaception, does not force ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, etc. Those are all done by "free will" and freedom. The government should not force us to commit sin yes, but also the government should force us not to commit sin by censoring art, literature, cinema, etc. which is bad for morals.