Foundation for Moral Law, Inc.

Moral Law ^ | Chief Justice Roy Moore

[steplock]

Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court has refused to bow down to the leftist radical extremist judicial activist orders to remove the 10-COMMANDMENTS from the Court of the State of Alabama.

We must raise the money for this case to move forward

Phone (205) 833-0800 Toll Free 1-866-317-0800 info@morallaw.org

Dear Fellow Americans, We Need Your Help!

While you have been working - rearing your family, paying your mortgage and taxes - the enemies of America have been hard at work too. They want to redefine freedom; your way of life and take from us the very source of our strength - God!

A lawsuit is currently working its way through the court system, brought about by the enemies of freedom, the outcome of which will have repercussions in every aspect of public life.

If the enemies of freedom prevail, God will be forever removed from our public life - "under God" will be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance; "in God we trust" will be removed from our money; we will no longer be able to stand in court and tell the truth "so help me God."

In 1962 citizens did nothing when the courts took prayer from our schools. In 1980, there was a deadly silence when the courts took the Ten Commandments from a schoolhouse in Kentucky. For the last 40 years we have wandered in a wilderness of indifference and immorality while God is stripped from every vestige of our public life. We Must Stand Together!

But the enemy has targeted one man - Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He has put his office and reputation on the line to acknowledge that the rights and freedoms we enjoy are gifts from a loving God.

In 1995, when Chief Justice Moore was a Circuit Judge, he displayed a small handmade wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall. He was sued by the ACLU whose desire was to force the removal of the plaque, and more specifically, any public display of the Ten Commandments. The ACLU failed, and Judge Moore continued to display the Ten Commandments. Now, seven years later, the ACLU is at it again.

Shortly after his election to the Alabama Supreme Court, Chief Justice Moore installed a monument in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. The monument of the Ten Commandments includes many references to God in the American Law and History, like the Pledge of Allegiance, our National Motto, the National Anthem and the Oath of all Public Officials.

The ACLU has demanded the monument be immediately removed, stating that the Ten Commandments in public classrooms and courthouses offends them.

The court battle is currently in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. As you can imagine, fighting this battle is very expensive. There are many other "Ten Commandments Defense Funds" which are not connected with Chief Justice Moore. While hundreds of thousands of dollars have been contributed to other worthy causes, The Original Ten Commandments Defense Fund has suffered and is presently greatly in debt for legal services already rendered.

Therefore, the Foundation for Moral Law has joined Chief Justice Moore in this fight and assumed the Original Ten Commandments Defense Fund to carry on the battle.

The fight is far from over. The ACLU, with their deep pockets, will not rest until God has been removed from the American way of life. Chief Justice Moore's team of lawyers has been working on defending your rights, making sacrifices in their own practices, to defend your freedom. Several hundred thousand dollars in legal bills have yet to be paid.

We shall not rest.

The Foundation has pledged to help Chief Justice Moore keep up the fight. However, the cost is enormous. We must raise the money for this case to move forward. The attorneys are committed to the cause but need to be paid immediately.

Your help is needed. Your gift will help insure that our children grow up in a Country that still acknowledges that the rights and freedoms we enjoy are gifts from God.

The Time is Now!

Warmest regards, Dr. Mel C. Glenn, Sr. Executive Director Foundation for Moral Law, Inc.

[ConservativeMan55]

Get Charlie Daniels involved! He is from Alabama!!
This could be the fight song!




Simple Man

I ain't nothin' but a simple man. They call me a redneck I reckon that I am. But there's things going on That make me mad down to the core.

I have to work like a dog to make ends meet. There's crooked politicians and crime in the street. And I'm madder'n hell and I ain't gonna take it no more.

We tell our kids to just say no Then some panty waist judge lets a drug dealer go. Slaps him on the wrist and then he turns him back out on the town.

Now if I had my way with people sellin' dope, I'd take a big tall tree and a short piece of rope, I'd hang 'em up high and let 'em swing 'til the sun goes down

Well, you know what's wrong with the world today People done gone and put their Bible's away, They're living by the law of the jungle not the law of the land. The good book says it so I know it's the truth An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth. You better watch where you go and remember where you been, That's the way I see it I'm a Simple Man.

Now I'm the kinda man that'd not harm a mouse But if I catch somebody breakin in my house I've got twelve guage shotgun waiting on the other side

So don't go pushing me against my will I don't want to have to fight you but I dern sure will So if you don't want trouble then you'd better just pass me on by

As far as I'm concerned there ain't no excuse For the raping and the killing and the child abuse And I've got a way to put an end to all that mess

Just take them rascals out in the swamp Put 'em on their knees and tie 'em to a stump Let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest

You know what's wrong with the world today People done gone and put their Bible's away They're living by the law of the jungle not the law of the land The Good Book says it so I know it's the truth An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth You better watch where you go and remember where you been That's the way I see it I'm a Simple Man.

[steplock]

The liberal federal judge has ordered the monument removed by Wednesday, August 20. Help us get one million signatures in support of Judge Moore before that date. Time is of the essence.

Take the following actions:

Click here to support Judge Moore and encourage Congress to stop the tyranny of liberal federal judges by passing the Citizen's Rights Act!

.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Wouldn't it be cheaper for him to move the monument and put it on his front lawn?

Or maybe he could rent some private real estate right beside the courthouse and put it there?

Maybe his church would like it on their lawn.

Why is he asking for money when there are all kinds of places to put the thing where people will see it?

[steplock]

Nope!

The Unitred States Govt has NO right demanding that a STATE judge remove the 10-Commandments from the property - especially using a LIE for a reason.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is NOTHING in Amendment I that PROHIBITS RELIGION, but it definitely states that NO LAW will abridge the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

The State Judge did NOT give up HIS rights as given & protected by the 1st Amendment.

It also directs that "Congress shall make no law". What does that mean? The federal government has NO RIGHTS in anything to do with religion - whether FOR or AGAINST.

The CONSTITUTION is the framework for the RESTRICTIONS of the federal government. It is precise and exact. You do not have to wonder what the meaning of "IS" is.

The anti-American federal judge, according to the constitution has broken the law of the country and deserves to be disbarred. In fact, if you really want to get into the constitution, congress can simply disban ALL the federal courts - except the SCOTUS. They SHOULD!

Read and see if you see any similarity into what is happening in this case:

This is the WHY of what is happening these days in Politics, the Church, the School. Find me anything below that has NOT occured or in the current "Things to do" list of the DNC and others.


Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937
Focus on Freedom
C L Steplock

There is an old saying that begins something like this: THOSE THAT FORGET THE PAST ....

In 1919 an Italian socialist named Antonio Gramsci began to publish a newspaper in Milan called, L'Ordine Nuovo, or "The New Order." Loosely rendered, he concluded that the average person would never voluntarily reject the faith and culture of the West. He concluded that the best way to implement a collectivist government was to use an intellectual elite to destroy traditional values by attacking fundamental Jewish and Christian beliefs.

Antonio Gramsci, 1891-1937

...A. The New Order (L'Ordine Nuovo)

...B. Lenin was wrong, and the Leninist revolution will fail (USSR falters - Berlin Wall down)
......1. The workers will see the revolutionary government as a new boss
......2. When the revolution fails, the west will re-import Capitalism

...C. Gradual revolution through infiltration & subversion by revolutionaries
......1. Infiltrate the State: elective & appointed office; judgeships
......2. Infiltrate the military: enlist & subvert from within
......3. Infiltrate justice: undermine and discredit state constitutions
......4. Infiltrate education: professors & administrators
......5. Infiltrate & discredit religion: scoundrels as clergymen
......6. Register, then license, then confiscate all privately held weapons

...D. Form or infiltrate international organizations to promote goals such as "global understanding," "economic development," "transfer of resources"

...E. Both Capitalism and Judaeo-Christian culture must be destroyed before a Communist revolution can succeed
......1. Religious sentiment cannot be destroyed through legislation, as Lenin believed, but must be redirected from the divine to the state
.........a. Terror will only drive Religion underground
.........b. Religion will then reemerge when Leninism fails
.........c. So Religion must be destroyed in the minds of men
......2. Infiltrate religious academies and become priests and clergymen
.........a. Subtly promote heresy within religious organizations
.........b. Infiltrators must act so as to discredit the church
............(1) Cause financial and sexual scandals
............(2) See that this is given a high profile in the news
............(3) Like-minded infiltrators in the media will cooperate
......3. Once religion is discredited from within, continuously promote the idea that only the state can solve the problems that have been traditionally brought before the church

...F. When propagating revolutionary ideas, cloak them in polite terms
......1. National Consensus
......2. Popular Mandate
......3. National Pacification
......4. Pluralism
......5. Global Community
......6. Economic Justice
......7. Economic Democracy
......8. Liberation Theology
......9. Direct Action

...G. Marxists "must enter into every civil, cultural, and political activity in every nation, leavening them as yeast leavens bread."

Gramsci-(original Italian) = Gramschi = Gramski-(sp prefered by communists)

[steplock]

More....

George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796:

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."


John Adams, our second president,in an address to military leaders said:

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Quincy Adams, the sixth U.S. President, on July 4, 1821, said:

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

---

It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were foundational to our educational and judicial system. However, in 1947, there was a radical change of direction for the Supreme Court. It required ignoring every precedent of Supreme Court ruling for the past 160 years. The Supreme Court ruled in a limited way to affirm a wall of separation between church and State in the public classroom.

In the coming years, this led to removing prayer from public schools in 1962. Here is the prayer that was banished:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country. Amen."

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this justification:
"If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children."

Bible reading was now unconstitutional, though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our Constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government.

In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the right of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food. In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.

The Supreme Court said this:

If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and obeyed them, this is not a permissible objective."

Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this:

"We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

Today, we are asking God to bless America. But, how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him? Prior to September 11, He was not welcome in America. Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country's Christian roots. You are encouraged to make copies, and share with others, so that the truth of our nation's history will be told.

[steplock]

And just for a little ...

George Washington, in setting forth fundamental principles from within the Constitutional republic he had helped birth, declared: 

The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail. 

Thomas Jefferson similarly pronounced: 

The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. 

Leftist (and some the other way) judges feel compelled to usurp the rights of the people at large; they declare themselves free from the customary restraints because they claim that the judiciary must be an “independent” branch, unaffected by the will of the people.

Thomas Jefferson foresaw this and explained: 

A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism. 

(According to Webster’s 1828 dictionary, a solecism is an absurdity and a gross deviation from the rules.) 

In other words, the judge should be free of reprisals from the government but is ANSWERABLE to the CITIZENS!

Thomas Jefferson could see the power mad legislators and activist judges setting themselves as OVERLORDS and warned:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power. 

---

A second and different “constitutional arm . . . of self-defense” was introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook (OK) in HJ RES 46. 

Istook’s “constitutional arm” is a long-needed constitutional amendment to restore religious freedom and – according to the bill – “include protection of the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of the Ten Commandments, and school prayer.” The wording is straightforward: 

To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools. The United States and the States shall not establish any official religion nor require any person to join in prayer or religious activity. 

This simple amendment, if passed, would completely undo the past four decades of religion- hostile decisions made by every federal court in the nation, including the US Supreme Court, and would overturn hundreds of rulings.

---

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Nope!"

I asked a couple of questions and I'm not sure which one you're trying to answer. So I thought I'd ask. Which is it?

[steplock]

Wouldn't it be cheaper for him to move the monument and put it on his front lawn?

Definitely

Or maybe he could rent some private real estate right beside the courthouse and put it there?

Sure could

Why is he asking for money when there are all kinds of places to put the thing where people will see it?

I can play this same game --- WHY ?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Why is he asking for money when there are all kinds of places to put the thing where people will see it?"

It must be a great mystery if no one asking for donations can think of an answer.

[KrisKrinkle]

Wouldn't it be cheaper for him to move the monument and put it on his front lawn?

Or maybe he could rent some private real estate right beside the courthouse and put it there?

In answer to both questions: Not if its state property.

Why is he asking for money when there are all kinds of places to put the thing where people will see it?

As to "...all kinds of places to put the thing...", it pleases him to have it where it is, it is consistent with the Alabamaa Constitution (according to what he just said on Hannity and Colmbs), it's within his authority to have it where it is (apparently) and he has yet to see why he should give in to a tyrant/bully.

As to "Why is he asking for money..." Excellant question. Is this not a State Governement versus Federal Government issue and should not the State pay for the legal proceedings? Why should we send money to this group in support of this particular effort?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"it pleases him to have it where it is"

How come?

[KrisKrinkle]

Ask him.

[jimt]

So it's cool if a Satanist judge puts up a monument glorifying Satan? Or if a Hindu judge puts up wall hangings glorifying Shiva, the destroyer?

I think Judge Moore is a nut and his expensive piece of statuary inappropriately placed. The first four commandments are explicitly religious in nature and have nothing to do with law, unless we're going to jail people for working on Sunday, or for using the Lord's name in vain.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Ask him."

What if the answer is "Because if I put the dang thing on my front lawn people will just think it's something I believe, but if I put it in a prominent place in a government building it looks more like a government backed idea and that gives it a little something extra"?

You think that might be relevant?

[KrisKrinkle]

No.

I've not reread the article, but I do not recall a reason he would give an answer like that.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

No what?

No it would not be relevant to the disposition of the case if he was asked why he wanted the monument in the courthouse rather than on his front lawn and his answer was "if I put the dang thing on my front lawn people will just think it's something I believe, but if I put it in a prominent place in a government building it looks more like a government backed idea and that gives it a little something extra"?

Is that your answer?

[KrisKrinkle]

No what?

No Sir?





All right: No, it would not be relevant to the discussion.

I see as speculative and vague the words "if I put the dang thing on my front lawn people will just think it's something I believe, but if I put it in a prominent place in a government building it looks more like a government backed idea and that gives it a little something extra."

In particular, the words "it's something I believe" and the words "government backed idea" are vague. They could refer to religion in general, a particular religion, the idea that the Ten Commandments are part of the basis of our system of law (leaving out the religious context), the idea that they should be a basis for our law, or who knows what.

The discussion didn't seem to be going in that direction. On the other hand, this particular thread seems to be somewhat truncated, so maybe it is relevant to the discussion now which leads to the following.

It might be relative to the disposition of his case in that his motive might be a factor and he would probably be required to show that his motive was not to:

. Establish a religion by law

. Give preference by law to any religious sect, society, denomination or mode of worship,

. And so forth in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Alabama and previous Judicial decisions in regard to the US Constituion. .

Or he would have to admit that his motive was to do so and provide justification as to why that was lawful.

But the words you hypothetically attribute to him don't do any of that so they become irrelevant again.