A misunderstanding that prevails in the secular media and amongst leftists at large, regards the origin of the concept of "separation of Church and State" and its intended meaning.

This phrase or concept does NOT appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land.

This concept was birthed by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, dated January 1, 1802, while he was President of the United States. That letter was meticulously worded to protect our religious institutions against government encroachment, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to oppose the British model where there is a Church of England, or, otherwise a "government church," whereby the king or queen is the primary "head" or "minister."

Jefferson may have chosen a peculiar way to institute such a protection by using himself as an example-- as "head of state,"-- but to him, it was the proper thing to do, in the most befitting way, since he, himself, was the President of the United States.

Thus, as he thought, what greater affirmation or validation could the church obtain than to receive support and agreement for freedom of religion and liberty of conscience from the highest office in the land!

Leftist liberals would be hard pressed in their attempts to turn Jefferson's remark on its head by submitting the opposite view--for the fact is, Thomas Jefferson was a friend and helper of the church and not its enemy.

Here is an excerpt from that letter, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that THEIR legislature should MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, THUS BUILDING A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE."

So, as you see, Jefferson was writing from the standpoint of PROTECTING churches from local, state and federal government intrusion in their affairs of faith and practice, in that government cannot make any law regarding religion at all, for that it is a matter of private conscience and right to freely worship. The "wall" was to keep government out in the sense of, no government interference, but it was not to keep faith out of government.

"The wall of separation"--a "wall" so to speak, erected between religion and government by the Constitution--was to keep government out of church affairs as the pillar of freedom of worship, and not to prevent citizens from knowing and learning, praying and practicing their faith in America. 

Nor was "the wall of separation" intended to abrogate the faith of public servants and to inhibit religious practice by individual public officials working in government. Public officials work in government and serve in government, but they, themselves, in person, are NOT the government. This misunderstanding must be cleared up--public servants, civil servants and government employees are still private citizens with full enjoyment of their Bill of Rights, but working in government as they "protect, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States."

For how can government service take away rights when government itself has been instituted "to secure these rights?"  Would not these government employees working for the people of the United States be compelled to destroy their very own rights, as well as the rights of their neighbors, as citizen-employees?

To the contrary, Jefferson encouraged religious faith and practice as President, for he had participated in writing the Declaration of Independence wherein he credits our Creator as the sole Author of our inalienable rights. And in addition, the Constitution was ratified "in the year of our Lord," 1787.

Again, an excerpt from the letter to Danbury Baptist Association in Jefferson's own words, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." He is saying, "I am praying with you for God's protection and blessing."

So, you see, even Jefferson, as President offered prayers in his correspondence with the Danbury Baptist Association.

In addition, see the context here, which is important, for, Jefferson wanted to distinguish religion as practiced in America from religion as practiced in Britain-- whereby the Church of England or the Anglican Church of which the British king or queen is the head of state, was the "official State religion."

Here is where Jefferson expressed his sentiment of caution, "I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally WHERE AN EXECUTIVE IS THE LEGAL HEAD OF A NATIONAL CHURCH."

Again, you see, Jefferson stated that even when he practices his faith publicly, it is indeed legal, but not as the "legal head of a national church." He would not attend service at the Church of England when it is well known that the queen or king is the legal head of that national church, even though his attendance there to worship would be legal.

Thus, Jefferson wanted to emphasize that there is NO "United States of America Church" with the President as head-pontificate, as compared to the British system where the king or queen is the head-pontificate, even when he legally opts to engage in "occasional performances of devotion."

And that was the context of the "wall of separation" between church and state.

Therefore, the context of "thus building a wall of separation between church and state," per the original meaning intended by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Danbury Baptist Association, in Connecticut, was that:

    1)  government must have a "hands off" policy regarding religion; it cannot make any law respecting its establishment or practice;
    

     2)  there is no "official government church" in the United States of America; in England there is the Church of England, but here there can never be "the Church of federal government" in America, with government dictating matters of faith and religious practice
    

     3)  all Americans in every capacity, have the inalienable rights to practice their faith and religion in accordance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, regardless of their profession or employment;                                                                                                                                        

    4)  given that government is instituted to protect citizens' inalienable rights, public officials, civil servants and government employees do not lose their civil and religious rights just because they enter a building designated as "public building" or "government building, or just because their employer happens to be "government."

In short, just because you go to public school or are employed by government, you don't leave your rights, at the door; just because you are in a government building, you don't stop being an American.

Otherwise, there would have been an insoluble contradiction--for the Constitution says you have freedom of religion; but when you are employed by government or when you enter a public building, your rights would evaporate? That would not make sense at all. Then, whose rights is government instituted to protect--if not yours, the public employee, also?

Consequently, the main point is that, for example, the governor of a State cannot declare that the State has opened a "government church" with the governor as "head-minister." In the same manner, the federal government cannot proclaim the opening of a "government church of the United States" with the president or the speaker of the house as "ministers." This, is the context Jefferson wanted to convey. And that is the context of Jefferson's letter in coining the phrase, concept or statement: "building a wall of separation between church and state."

Remember, Jefferson's intention was to sustain the security and protections for religious freedom that are already guaranteed for ALL Americans and persons within the jurisdiction of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, in all places and for all time, and not to destroy the very foundation for the existence of government itself, which is, "to secure these rights."

OMINOUS DANGERS WITH "TREATIES"

     The President of the United States is constitutionally empowered to "make treaties" with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article II to the Constitution of the United States reads:

      "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur;"

  Article VI, Constitution of the United States of America reads (with emphasis):

 "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; AND ALL TREATIES made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in very state shall be bound thereby any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

So, you see, the major problem with treaties is that they have as much weight as the Constitution of the United States, in that treaty provisions, per Article VI to the Constitution of the United States, supersede the specific laws of each and every State in this Union, and State judges must obey treaty provisions regardless of State or local laws to the contrary.

This provision of Article VI appears to conflict with Amendments IX, X and XI. In Amendments IX and X, powers not delegated to the federal government are retained by the people or the States, respectively. And in Amendment XI, even the judicial power of the United States is restricted in scope so as not to extend "to any suit in law or equity . . . commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States . . . by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." This Amendment was intended to prevent federal courts from acting in favor of a particular State against the rights of individual citizens, so that justice may be properly obtained. However, there is the "other side of the coin."

Since Article VI prevents the Supreme Court of the United States from intervening on behalf of a State, even if that State is sued at law or equity in a treaty-related legal action commenced or prosecuted against it by "Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State," then who shall protect a State of this Union against treaty provisions that violate that State's constitution or the inalienable substantive or due process rights of citizens thereof?

There is a grave danger looming over the heads of individual citizens, with our leftist representatives or senators running to the United Nations to promote "treaties" that both internationally and domestically undermine the constitutional and parental rights of all Americans,--such as the so-called "rights of the child,"--because the policies therein could never pass constitutional muster were they to be proposed in State legislatures or Congress.

In that so-called "U.N. legislation," they intend to change the age at which a child is considered a minor, to so-called "empower" children for legal actions in courts of law, as well as changing the very foundation of American self-government whereby parental authority in directing children's spiritual, moral, vocational and professional education cannot be abrogated.

In short, in the United Nations, leftist fanatics are attempting to transfer adult rights to immature and innocent children who do not even have the capacity to understand or apply these legal obfuscations, except that their devolution will have been controlled by self-interested adults obsessed with taking control of those children's lives, hence, their camouflaged advocacy to make children "enemies" of their parents. U.N. personnel and their respective treaty representatives in member countries would therefore have more rights over American children than the American parents of those American children.

American children do not belong to NGOs or "non-governmental organizations," nor to elected politicians who can be "booted out of office," nor to delegates from United Nations member countries.

 In addition, there are problems occurring in other parts of the world which Americans have already resolved here, by the rule of law, such as "child labor," "child slavery," "child sexual abuse," etc . . . And if these instances require United Nations action in other countries where these odious problems still exist, then the U.N. has to work with those respective nations in order to undertake local policies that address resolution of those crimes against children. But the U.N. or parasitic NGOs cannot "lump" all children all over the world into one "grab bag," in order to extend their tentacles in power grabs from which they will certainly profit. American parental rights are inalienable and must be faithfully preserved.

In all these instances, it is necessary to remain vigilant so as to protect American sovereignty, and by that, secure protection for the inalienable rights of all American parents which are already guarantied by the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.

THE "MIDDLE" DECEPTION

                                       T    h    e        M    a    j    o    r    i    t    y _____

            Extreme Left                                                               Extreme Right

         (Fringe groups)                                                                (Fringe groups)

        (Outer-edge individuals)                                              (Outer-edge individuals)

          ANARCHISTS                                                                   FASCISTS

         (Lawlessness)                                                                 (Legalistic Terror)

There has been a great misunderstanding in our culture due to the mass media always striving to reduce every thing to its simplest expression because of estimated public illiteracy. For example, even though most reporters have college degrees, they are advised to write at a "sixth grade education level." And lately, from the media itself, it has been promulgated that the level of literacy is even lower in American society, and that they should be writing at a "fourth grade education level."

 This media estimation is an insult to our intelligence. For, regardless of education level, people always possess the "undeveloped" intelligence that allows them to reach for a higher level of performance. And this I know from personal experience. For, I knew a man who had a son who was in a motorcycle accident that tore his knee cap, after which he became disabled. That son, a fine young man, explained to me all the adjustments he had to make, however, with great surprises about the person he had been all along.

  He told me that he returned to school to obtain a degree in electronics and discovered to his utter amazement that his intelligence was in a "dormant state," because he never applied himself completely--that in high school, he "just cruised;" and that he never really "applied himself" to "reach for the stars" or to "stretch himself" in order to be "the best that he could be." In short, he was excelling in his studies of electronics, within a journey of self-discovery as well.

              "To shoot for the lowest rung of the social ladder," is a tragedy of tremendous regrettable proportions.  The media and public schools bureaucrats and teachers should not insinuate to students that there is no right or wrong answer in social studies classes and other courses.  Students have the right to try--after which they discover whether they fail or succeed. If students leave with the attitude that there is no difference between failure and success, then a great wrong is being perpetrated against them and their well-being.

             In mathematics or sciences, there is a correct or incorrect answer; therefore, so too in the social sciences--for example, America is a free, representative republic, and not an oligarchic tyranny. Thus, there are right and wrong answers, correct and incorrect solutions. Otherwise, students, young people are being programmed for failure--to simply seek to "belong" to the "common lot of the average" in accomplishment, achievement and personal development.

              It is not true that the majority always seeks the "middle," "the average" or "the mean," or the "lowest common denominator." 

              But rather, the majority is "the whole widest greatest middle" AWAY FROM BOTH EXTREMES, as shown in the diagram above.

              There are extremes from both the left and the right. An example of extremes to the left may have been Charles Manson; an example of extremes to the right, perhaps, may have been Ted Kazinsky, the so-called "Unabomber" (a term created by the media).

               The misunderstanding or rather the "deceptive middle" emerged, I believe, due to the great difficulty that had arisen in developing consistent policies regarding racial discrimination born of past historical slavery of Afro-Americans, and past colonial occupation of "non-white" ethnic groups. Since the perpetrators of slavery and colonialism appeared to have belonged to the Caucasian groups of the Earth, from the 1920s onwards, the concepts of "majority" and "minority" began to be associated with "race," rather than political or economic interests.

            For example, in Congress, when the Democrats are the "majority party" as a group regardless of race or ethnicity of members, the Republicans as a group, are the minority party regardless of race or ethnicity of party members.

            Unfortunately, whereas in Congress the meanings attached to "majority" and "minority" are due to political affiliation, in the society at large, the meanings associated with "majority" and "minority" have been distorted to only refer to "white" and "non-white," or as the mass media, public schools and university bureaucrats say, "people of color," as if "white Caucasians" have no "color" themselves.

In Federalist Papers or Publius, No.51, James Madison addresses majority-minority problems in terms of political, economic and social interests:

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be

connected with the constitutional rights of the place........................

"Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority

be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There

are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in

the community independent of the majority--that is, of the society itself; the

other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens

as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable,

if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an

hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security;

because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views

of the major as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be

turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal

republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it be derived from and

dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts,

interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority,

will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free

government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious

rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in

the multiplicity of sects."  

(The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, Jay by Clinton Rossiter, 1961,    

  Mentor Book) (emphasis, added above)

Individuals enjoying freedom of religion and freedom of association being the foundation of lawful, constructive liberty, given the multiplicity of interests and diversity of groups, no "majority combination" would emerge, Founders believed, to infringe upon the rights or interests of "minority groups"--but read, political, economic, cultural or other social minority category; not racial or ethnic.

Individuals have the inalienable right to associate in ways that are compatible with other individuals freely willing to associate on the basis of their respective interests, but no individual or group can be physically forced or legally forced to associate with another individual or another group. It is all on a free will, voluntary basis.

America's Founders envisioned a society filled with individuals and groups of diverse interests, all enjoying the equal protection of laws based upon consent, whereby the rule of the majority would animate the public interest, the majority being the greatest number of diverse people coming to a lawful, reasonable and constructive agreement on a certain resolution, regardless of ethnicity or racial affiliation--for example, as the will of the voting majority encompassing all individuals of all interests, as all individuals would have equal access to all available legal opportunities to prosper, while enjoying the inalienable rights to avail themselves of these opportunities.

With the inalienable right of equal access to all available legal opportunities to comprehensively prosper in society, no individual would seek to rebel against his own destiny, since he had the free will to fashion its outcome. It is therefore wrong to speak of a so-called "right to fail," but rather one should speak of the "right to try." For failure or success comes after trying to achieve.

For example, when we vote in presidential elections, the elected person receives votes from all ethnic groups in America, therefore, being elected by the will of the majority of Americans. And this has nothing to do with the statistical "mean," "middle" or "average." Each individual vote is counted and is as important as every other individual vote. Each individual vote has a qualitative excellence that is not diminished by any other individual vote--but that, as they are added together, the majority of voters with the most votes for a candidate win the election. But that majority is constituted of all individual voters whose candidate won the election, regardless of race or ethnicity.

In the same vein, as we consider individual development and social success, all individuals have the same inalienable rights to lawfully attempt to excel without undue impediment from government, from any group or other individual, the complex of which conducive to open channels of achievement parading individual merit as the determinant of outcomes rather than hereditary succession or genetically-derived causation.

Therefore, it is not the so-called "average" or "middle" or "mean" that individuals should target in their personal development, prosperity and maturity, but rather they should apply themselves to the fullest extent of their capacity to succeed in this great nation where every one can "dream big," to then witness and live the accomplishment of their dreams in real, achievable, enjoyable prosperity, in terms of both social and material benefits.

In other words, it is ok to be Bill Gates as it is ok to be Bill Cosby; it is ok to be Donald Trump as it is ok to be Lee Trevino.