Home Site  -  Keyes Media Central  -  Keyes Archives  -  Strategic Plan  -  Grassroots Handbook  -  Forum

Your comments on the Ten Commandments issue

One Nation Under God

From: Robert Baral
Location: USA
Date: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:22 PM Central Time

Read my article on the sad state of affairs in Amerika today and weap before GOD:



From: John H. Lindorfer
Location: Long Beach, MS
Date: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:00 PM Central Time

You can see my comments at http://www.datasync.com/~wizard/Monument.html

From: Jerry Rodrigues
Location: Santa Clara, California
Date: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:20 AM Central Time

People of the USA, we as Americans MUST follow Judge Moore's lead.

We MUST have a Nationwide show of peaceful force by:

1. Having ALL of our children in ALL schools take schoolbooks with dust covers showing Christian faith, Jewish faith, Muslim faith & every other faith which is within our nation. This affects us ALL!

2. On a Daily Basis, sign up people to carry Pro-Religious beliefs in front of every courthouse, every school, every political building whether it be city, county, state OR Federal building including the FBI, CIA, DEA, or whichever government building it may be.

3. We may be in a war in Iraq & on terrorism in general, but our greatest & most important war is the war we must be determined to have against the Non-religious people who have twisted the meaning of our Fairness in OUR Constitution which Proclaims FREEDOM of RELIGION & the toleration (NOT the right to re-write our Constitution by the Anti-Religious in our country).

4. I am willing to Picket these government offices no matter what... ARE YOU???

There are many people who are "Lunchtime Politicians" who will yell & scream about wrongdoings by various entities, BUT when it comes to putting ACTION where their mouths are they don't want to be involved!!!

Are YOU who are reading this right now one of these people who are afraid to do what is the right thing to do? Or are you like Peter who three times denied Jesus Christ.

Eternity is a very long time. Where do YOU want to go?
These ARE the Endtimes!!! We now have ALL of the technology to see the stars fall out of the sky around the world, because these stars are actually rockets falling down all around. We have the Famines, the Diseases, the Earthquakes, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Volcanic Action, the Wars & Rumors of Wars. We have Families acting against each other, Husbands & Wives destroying their marriages, Killing each other, Children & parents turning against each other.

We now have the "Mark of the Beast," with Bar Codes sneaking in supposedly for "Commerce Sake," then it spread to "Implanting Your Pet," & now they are saying to "Implant Your Children," & they are also saying to "Implant College Students for Identification Purposes," & NEXT they will be saying to "Implant Everyone!!!"

They put a Barcode on your Driver's License & can include ALL of your Personal & Medical History without you even knowing it!!!
Is THIS the way you want to live? Read Orwell's book entitled, "1984" & other like books which should be an eye opening Warning to you, OR just continue being complacent hiding your head in the sand thinking you will be safe this way... It is up to YOU!!!

What will your answer be when God says, "Where were you when you were called to show your allegience to ME???

I say, "It is time, right now, to start planning, to organize Boycotts & Ralleys Nationwide to overcome any further Dictatorial Statements whether it be from your local legislator OR a Federal Court Judge who is trying to re-write our US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence AND the Magna Carta, & Most of All, thinking they are superior to Our Creator!!!"

I would like personally to be contacted by RENEW AMERICA & the readers of MY comments & tell me what you think, whether you have positive comments & agree with me OR even those who disagree with me.

It is time to START ACTION...NOW!!!

The US Constitution is supposed to Guarantee our RIGHTS to show our faith in any way we chose & the Government is NOT to interfere with any of our religious preferences.

The US Constitution only says that we are not to formulate a "State Religion," even though our nation was founded as a Christian Nation we have included into our Constitution the FREEDOM of Religion...NOT the exclusion of religion!

In BOTH, our US Constitution AND our Declaration of Independence, as well as in/on our Government buildings we SAY AND SHOW our TRUST in GOD!!!

Our Congress begins their day in Prayer.

Most Sincerely,
Jerry Rodrigues

From: pam montelauro
Location: wyandotte, Mi
Date: Monday, November 17, 2003 6:43 AM Central Time

This whole political correctness has made us a nation of fools. I have my eighth grade history book which , as part of HISTORY, has the history of religion, each kind than the last is Jesus the messanger of peace. Without God we see the vast void being filled with every imaginable evil. Is this what we want? Thank God for Judge Moore and may all of us who call ourselves Christian stand up and be counted. Clinton appointed judeges to all 50 states (I believe this is correct) and if we want to see any change, we need to have President Bush apppointed judges who will counteract them. And pray like the dickens!

From: Jeff Gardner
Location: Manassas, VA
Date: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:12 PM Central Time

Roy Moore’s Standing

Following the removal of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore from his position because, in the words of the Court of the Judiciary, he “willfully and publicly defied a court order,” Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and others said this was about the rule of law, not about state’s rights, religion, or the Ten Commandments.

If we look at the evidence, the primary issue was really the abuse of law and authority, not at the state level, but at the federal level. Many people in all three branches of the federal government have grossly mischaracterized or even abandoned the long-cherished concept of “the rule of law.” Maybe they think that in doing so, they can change its meaning. (Remember the recent mockery of a Senate trial that was supposed to honestly weigh evidence that the President lied under oath and obstructed justice?) However, despite attempts to revise history, a number of people understand our heritage and our Constitution, and stand for what is right.

Chief Justice Moore has said many times that his job was to uphold the laws of Alabama as well as the United States. The Alabama Constitution includes the words, "invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God..." When federal district court judge Myron Thompson issued the order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama State Judiciary Building, Moore said the federal court overreached its legal authority. After he was removed from his position, he said again the federal court had no jurisdiction in this case. Why? As Moore and others have explained, when one finds a conflict between a court order and the Constitution, go with the latter because it is the superior law. Court orders, and the rule of law, mean nothing without the Constitution.

Moore also said the First Amendment is the law in this case. Why would he say that? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was written to limit the federal government, not that of the states: "Congress shall make no law..." The Alabama Supreme Court is not Congress. Roy Moore did not make a law establishing a religion. He did not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Neither the "establishment clause" nor the “free exercise” clause had been violated, so there was no just cause for the federal court order.

One can imagine the concern or contempt of those who feel the need to protect others from exposure to religious symbols and ideas, especially Judeo-Christian ones. Gasp! Someone might read the words on the monument and actually agree with them. (The U.S. Supreme Court used that argument in Stone v. Graham, deciding against posting the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky school as part of a display about “the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.”) Someone might feel coerced or compelled to believe them. Someone might be offended by them. We cannot have that!

Strictly speaking, the order was unlawful. And in issuing it, the federal court itself violated the “free exercise” clause. But since many don’t subscribe to strictly adhering to the Constitution and the intent of its authors, what is a Justice to do? Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court? They declined, without comment. How convenient. Yet, just because the Supreme Court decided not to hear Moore's case, this issue is not settled. A number of similar cases are simmering. And it’s not like the Supreme Court has always been right about Constitutional cases. While some legal opinions may carry some weight, they do not necessarily emanate from or support the rule of law.

Federal law does not necessarily take precedence over state law. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were added to protect the states and the people. Amendment Nine: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Amendment Ten: "The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Roy Moore, a citizen and an official, exercised and defended what the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions say are his rights. As a result, he was removed from office. But was he right or wrong? Does he have rights or not? It seems not to matter to some people. Some have said a citizen can engage in civil disobedience, but a justice cannot, because of the importance of the rule of law. But if a very well-read, very well-respected State Supreme Court Chief Justice, who has the weight of both the Alabama and U.S. Constitutions on his side, cannot challenge an unlawful order in the name of a state's rights and a citizen's rights, who can? If the rule of law means anything a judge wants it to mean, it is no longer the rule of law, it is the rule of man.

Moore said he has no regrets. He upheld the Constitutions and his oath to them, and acknowledges God as the Supreme Law-Giver and foundation of law, our country, our government, and our liberties. Roy Moore is standing on the firm foundation. What are his opponents standing on?

Yours for the Foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11) of the Founders,
Jeff Gardner

From: Ruth Lopez
Location: Victorville, CA
Date: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:13 AM Central Time

If you believe in God and that He truly blessed America; that this nation was founded on Christian principles, to which God has rewarded greatly; that there is a movement in this country to remove every trace of God completely from public; that the First Amendment means “Freedom OF Religion“, not “FROM Religion“; and that God’s Word deserves more respect than to be removed from our court houses, than join me in bombarding Judge Thompson's court, as well as the three individuals who brought suit against Judge Moore, with copies of the Ten Commandments. Make four copies of the Commandments and mail each separately to the addresses below: Then, SEND THIS MESSAGE OUT TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!!


U.S. District Court Middle District of Alabama
Judge Myron Thompson
c/o Ms. Debra Hackett
Clerk of the Court
One Church Street
Montgomery, AL 36101

Beverly J. Howard
640 S. McDonough Street
Montgomery, AL 36104

Melinda Maddox
8116 Old Federal Road, Ste. C
Montgomery, AL 36117

Stephen Glassroth
The Glassroth Law Firm, P.C.
615 S. McDonough Street
Montgomery, AL 36101

Make four separate copies of these Ten Commandments (OR make your own: hand write, have your kids make them, etc. Be creative! Remember, you‘re just sending the Commandments, nothing else.)

I. I am the Lord your God.
II. You shall not worship any graven image.
III. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
IV. Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy.
V. Honor your father and your mother.
VI. You shall not murder.
VII. You shall not commit adultery.
VIII. You shall not steal.
IX. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
X. You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor’s.

From: Randy Hooser
Location: Huntsville, AL
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2003 2:21 PM Central Time

Even though Roy Moore's final trial is today many more major IDIOTIC judicial decisions have occurred since the TEN COMMANDMENTS were removed in Montgomery. CA Recall election, Do Not Call list, and the GA removal of another Ten Commandments. I think the time has come to recognize the RULE OF LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN FOR A LONG TIME AND AT THE HIGHEST levels of government. Roy Moore tried to stop the insanity, at least in Alabama.

We always hear about a President's legacy. What greater legacy can a president give to his people than the RESTORATION of thier CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. If any president could truly restore the US SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND to America would he not be BELOVED FOREVER?? We all know the US Constitution is violated regularly ON HIGH. Then we must state that the RULE OF LAW IN America is broken. We do not need a law degree to understand the US Constituion, we only need a law degree to SUBVERT the US Constitution. Just ask Myron Thompson or those 3 judicial baffoons (9th Circuit) in California.

If the American people cannot understand that ONLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE are the true stewards of a document written to PROTECT US -- then we are doomed. The alarm bells are sounding but are we TOO dense to protect ourselves?

The Jefferson quote below says a lot regarding America's judicial problems today. (Please post on your website at least what TJ (Thomas Jefferson) said about the Judiciary if they are NOT honorable men.)

If the Federal judiciary is not checked, it will destroy democracy.

Thomas Jefferson To C. Hammond, 1821

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression (although I do not choose to put it into a newspaper, nor, like a Priam in armor, offer myself its champion), that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government or another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. It will be as in Europe, where every man must be either pike or gudgeon, hammer or anvil. Our functionaries and theirs are wares from the same workshop; made of the same materials, and by the same hand. If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron, and the blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government, become his true historians. "


We were warned about judicial tyranny and we ignored the warning.

Every federal branch of government has, at one point in US history, violated the US Constitution and founding fathers original intent. Executive Branch: Abe Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and Franklin Roosevelt served for 3 terms. Legislative: the War Powers Act; no longer are congressmen citizen legislators, they now have become careerists. Now the judicial system has accepted a "willful distortion doctrine" which can be easily proven to be vacuous. Justice Stephen Byers has already said he does NOT believe that the US Constitution will survive in the global age. HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED for that willful disregard for the FINAL JUDGE OF LAW IN America.

WE THE PEOPLE are the only stewards for the US Constitution and I believe we must stand NOW America -- or our form of government is DOOMED. The judicial depravity played out since 1947 has reached crisis proportions. [Ref: 1947 was the year of the quote "Separation of Church and State".]

It is time for a National Judicial Review. In this review, the US Constitution is the JUDGE; the jury will be renown Constitution scholars (like Dr. David Lowenthal); the prosecution will be the Congress and the people of the United States; and the each Federal and Supreme court judge must represent themselves. We will invoke a zero tolerance policy. One willful misrepresentation of the US Constitution, in the minds of our jury, will impeach the judge who made the decision. Say goodbye to lawless judges.

This will stop this judicial tyranny and it might have one additional side effect. It may help restore sanity to the Senate by stopping the filibuster. In order to STOP the filibuster in the Senate, we would start with the LIBERAL judges on the bench. Congress will move to impeach Federal judges just as steadfastly as the liberals can prevent them from joining. Congress will first move against the liberal federal judges (like the 9th circuit court) and pass judgments on the outcome.

I think it is fair to say not only did the Founding Fathers know exactly what they were doing when they prepared our US Constitution, but they also knew exactly what would happen if Americans were not vigilant. After all the LEFT loves to quote Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter. Whole deception industries have evolved from that Danbury Baptist letter.

George Bush and Congress need to study the US Constitution to remind themselves which power they have IN RESOLVING THIS MATTER, Article 3 Section 2 paragraph 2 for starters. If you need a primer then go to Federalist paper #80. The last paragraph reads:

Title: The Powers of the Judiciary Federalist Paper #80

"From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconveniences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE will have ample authority to make such EXCEPTIONS, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences. The possibility of particular mischiefs can never be viewed, by a well informed mind, as a solid objection to a general principle, which is calculated to avoid general mischiefs and to obtain general advantages."

The executive & legislative branches can fix this. They need to study their founding documents and act.

Randy Hooser

PS My forefather George Hooser Jr. voted for the US Constitution in 1789 in North Carolina. Other than donating our last name to Indiana (the Hoosier State) our family endorsement of the US Constitution is a family treasure we will always honor.

From: Jay
Date: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:42 PM Central Time

The law was removed by Christ's death on the cross. Jews would (before Christ's death ) nail a law to a tree for all to see in town that had been concidered a dead law. If Christ died to remove the law from being a stumbling block then don't fear the ten commandments being removed. I just sure would like to than the English or whoever it was that put the bible in latin, ya really gave us a struggle to overcome ! Oh, yeah ya know it was God cause he said we are more than overcomers ! With Love

From: Douglas Berry, SSG, USA (ret)
Location: San Jose, California
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:51 AM Central Time

I live within walking distance of three churches and a synagogue. The is a store selling Bibles and other religious writings a short bike ride away. People wear religious items and put religious bumperstickers on their car.

What exactly are you afraid of?

Let me explain. I am a member of a non-Judeo Christian religion. The Ten Commandments do not represent me. As an American Citizen, a veteran of the US Army, and a voter I wasnt the First Amendment followed to the letter! That means no establishment of religion. None. Not mine, nor yours.

We are all, I suspect, people of faith. I, as a pagan, have different beliefs than you. Yet I don't need the Rede carved in courthouses to befend my beliefs, nor do I demand that children by forced to recite various pagan incantations prior to school. I practise my faith with my loved ones, and with in myself.

I suggest you do the same.

Location: BROOKLYN,N.Y.
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:58 PM Central Time


From: Carolyn Hileman
Location: Lufkin, TX.
Date: Thursday, October 9, 2003 9:32 AM Central Time

Just wanted to let you know we have been in this fight along with you...
Same story different state
Written by: Carolyn Hileman

I have preferred to remain silent on the California recall race, primarily because it is in California and does not affect anyone who does not live there. Yesterday things changed, The ninth circuit court stepped in where they had no business what so ever and wrote law. These people who are not even elected told over half of California that their votes mean nothing. It does not matter that these people voted to have the recall, the ACLU and the Federal courts are all that count. It should not amaze us that the liberals would go to such lengths to keep from losing, after all it was just a few years ago that they tried to have the votes of our military thrown out. They have made it abundantly clear that your vote only counts if you are going to vote their way.

The federal courts have now proven to us in the last few months at least three times that states rights are all null and void. Texas, Alabama and now California state by state they are slowly showing us that what the people want does not matter. These judges are appointed, which explains why the democrats are hell bent on not allowing the president appoint a judge. The liberals have control over our federal courts and they are not about to relinquish it for anything. What that means is if there is anything that the people vote on that they dislike the ACLU will go to court and the court will simply throw it out.

You know it keeps running through my mind about countries like Iraq, Iran, Russia and China. I keep wondering did they come in with a big army and just suddenly take over or did they over a short period of time start taking away their rights. The liberals like to call President Bush Hitler, but I am of a mind that the behavior shown in Florida and California is Nazism. What else can you call a portion of government that has control over everything? The only way to stop the rogue judges is to ask congress to stop them, well that will never happen because they approve of their behavior. In short even though we voted for a republican house and senate, even though we voted for a republican president, we are still under control of the liberals.

The action in California was a wake up call America, it was a slap in the face of every single American. Democrat or republican you were just told your vote doesn’t mean crap. That is right, you votes in November of last year do not matter, you might have just as well stayed home. Your vote in 2000 means nothing. We are now at the mercy of the federal courts that are controlled by the liberals. We will continue to be in control of the liberals because these judges will remain in office till they die. There will be no conservative judges, because the liberals in the house and senate will not allow their power to be stripped from them.

We have no voice in government anymore, it has effectively been silenced. It does not matter what the people want it is a government of a select few minority groups. I had in all my emails before the November elections, vote republican stop Adolph Daschle I had no idea then just how right I was. I cannot tell you what we should do, petitions will not work, how many have we signed in support of judges who never got nominated? I can’t say vote them out because we got a majority and we are still in the minority.

How many more states will have their rights violated before we wake up and look around us and figure out that something is really wrong here? When are we Americans going to defend our God given rights? As I sit here I am not sure that in all of my writing that any one is getting it. Yeah sure you will read them, wipe your eyes and go on with your life. Everyone is so focused on the economy that they cannot see the wall that is about to crumble around them. They cannot see the evil that lives among us. It makes me wonder if it is worth my effort at all. Everyone wants to complain about the president, well he has not usurped anyone’s rights, not even when they were protesting him.

Oh and lets not forget the Patriot Act, it will take our rights away, Hello what in the hell just happened in California? They will decide who is under suspicion, no they will decide who can vote, and whether that vote will stand. So go ahead and cry over the Patriot Act while the liberals who are screaming just as loud are walking away with your right to vote, if we have no right to vote then guess what, you have no chance of ever getting that or anything else changed. So I think the issue of the federal courts is just a bit more important right now.

The voice of the common people

From: Brian Eargle
Location: Sumter, SC
Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:57 PM Central Time

A letter to your Senators and Representative...

Please vote to rein in the courts on 1st amendment issues, not just to protect the 10 commandments.

Dear Hon. Sen./Rep. ---------,

The majority of Americans still believe in upholding the Constitution, and not as twisted by the courts. That weight of American opinion must be brought to bear on wholesale enforcement of 1st amendment free exercise and 10th amendment denial of jurisdiction where the federal government, in particular, the judiciary, is now
usurping. Single issue bills like HR 2045 / S 1558 will wear the Christian constituency out.

We don't have the voter support nor the legal fees to go after every anti-Christian legal usurpation brought by the ACLU. A wall of separation, removal of prayer and Bible reading from schools, abortion, removal of Christian evidences from public view, homosexual "marriage",
revolving-door justice beginning in the government schools... it goes on and on and will continue to go on until Jesus comes. Trying to stop sin with even the best judicial "sharpshooters" is piecemeal. We need a WALL.

Through the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, inspired by Divine Providence, that wall is in place, in the 1st, 9th, and 10th amendments. The executive branch must _enforce_ these primary documents, the law of the land. If Congress must get involved, it need only be to flesh out these amendments, so as to renounce the misinterpretations imposed by renegade judges.

I vote "NAY" to individual bills protecting the 10 commandments, "in God we trust", "one nation under God," etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. They border on Congress establishing religion. They squander the support (77% according to USA Today on Aug. 28, I believe) that Judge Roy Moore's courage and sacrifice has generated.

Short of a nationwide revival of following Jesus Christ, what is needed from government is one fell swoop of the scythe to clear the field of weeds. At Montgomery, Dr. Alan Keyes proposed the following:

The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Article 3, Section 2 provides appellate jurisdiction to the U.S. courts, except as restricted by the Congress.

The 1st Amendment states that the Congress [and as interpreted by the courts, the U.S. federal government,] shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion nor restricting the free exercise thereof. This includes the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District and Circuit Courts,
and the Hon. Justice Myron Thompson, who unlawfully ordered the 10 Commandments monument removed from the Alabama Supreme Court rotunda.

The 10th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution shall remain for the states and the people.

Therefore, the proper procedure, according to the checks and balances built into the Constitution for requesting redress of grievances, is to petition Congress to rein in the courts, which have usurped powers specifically denied them by the 1st and 10th Amendments.

Let it therefore be resolved, that:
In any case before a U.S. federal court, that court may make no rule and express no opinion on any part to which the 1st or 10th Amendment applies.

"If Congress can pass no law, then Judge Moore can break no law!"


From: Jim Hauser
Date: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:13 AM Central Time

To: John Galt

"Could somebody please explain to me in simple terms why it is wrong to ban a document that is very specific to one religion from a government building, particularly in a country founded on the principle of division of church and state?"

Sure John - Because this country was NOT founded on the "principle of division (or seperation) of church and state" nor did the First Amendment specificly apply to state congresses.

Congress shall make no law means just that. The executive branch is not congress nor is the Supreme Court. And in Judge Moore's case - no laws were passed nor could they be because he nor the Alabama Supreme court are congress.

The real issue here is NOT Judge Moore or the Ten Commandments - it is judicial usurpation of congressional power.

From: John Galt
Date: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:15 AM Central Time

Well said, Mr. Atkins. This talk of banning God from the public view is the typical misleading rhetoric used to confuse the issue. In my eyes, this is a simple case of the division of church and state. I certainly wouldn't want to see Satanists chisel a set of Commandments into stone and insist that they be displayed in the state courthouse.

From: Martin Atkins
Location: Akron, OH
Date: Thursday, September 18, 2003 10:09 AM Central Time

Mr. Dahlgren's post below demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the ACLU's position. He says the ACLU is trying to prevent anyone from being "exposed" to traditional religous symbols. Many potesters cry of them trying to "banish" christ from the "public square". These claims are plainly untrue. If they were true, then the ACLU would be suing to remove crosses from churchyards. The ACLU would be running around snatching nativity scenes from people's lawns.

The issue here is PUBLIC property. Religous figures in the community are using their position of power to exploit their access to public property to advance values that are partially (7 of 10) irrelevant for civic life. What good does the Ten Commandments monument do, in your eyes? I suspect you would say it benefits the community by reminding people who see it of the values upon which this country was founded. Would it then be fair to say that your hope is that someone who is not currently living by these values might see this monument and perhaps adopt these values into their lives? I suspect you might say "sure, and the community benefits because now that person is a better citizen". But wait a second. Please, please, someone explain to me how, say, the first FOUR commandments make someone a better citizen in ANY way.

If judge Moore had posted commandments six, eight and nine on a stone tablet, the ACLU would not be in this. It is their position, however, that the other seven do not belong on PUBLIC (government run) property.

Moreover, in the case of PRIVATE property, the ACLU would be the first to DEFEND religous symbols. Here's a simple example. Suppose there is a community of very religous baptists. A catholic moves into the neighborhood and puts a display in their yard featuring a giant statue of the pope. The neighborhood board files an action to remove this blasphemous display. The ACLU would be there to say that you can do whatever you want with your private property. And yes, they can be displayed prominently and in full public view.

One last point about whether or not the founding fathers were deists. That question itself is a non-sequitor. The law of this land that we all must live by is what is in the constitution and what is in the laws that have been passed, signed and are on the books. period. Let's say we did raise them from the dead, as in your example, and they were dismayed about god not being celebrated on public property. So what? All they could say would be "whoops, wish we'd written that in." But they didn't. And if you want to write into law what you think they would wish they'd remembered, then go ahead and try to add an amendement to the constitution. Failing that, under the constitution as it stands now, that monument in a courthouse is patently illegal (but on YOUR property, facing the street for all to see, is entirely legal and protected).

From: John Galt
Date: Thursday, September 18, 2003 10:06 AM Central Time

Could somebody please explain to me in simple terms why it is wrong to ban a document that is very specific to one religion from a government building, particularly in a country founded on the principle of division of church and state?

One *can* choose not to eat dinner at a neighbor's house. One *can't* choose not to use their state's court system.

From: Curtis Dahlgren
Location: Michigan
Date: Thursday, September 18, 2003 6:13 AM Central Time

If Mr. Atkins is new to this site, that's good, because we need more people to be educated. His statement that "the constitution is not a religious document" is a non-sequitir.

Any minute now, someone is going to add: "The first 6 Presidents were Deists"; what a bunch of balderdash. If the Founding Fathers were raised from the dead, and someday they will be, they would want to know: "What in creation were you THINKING when you banned God from public view, and how come the Supreme Court justices have no robes?" We've lost any concept of the examples set by men such as Pres. Washington, who chided the Deists in his farewell address to the nation (could be quoted, but will save space).

Another non-sequitir is "America is now a colorful MOSAIC" with more than one religion. So WHAT - that doesn't mean that the MOSAIC LAW has to be banned from view. If my neighbors invited me to have Thanksgiving dinner at their house, I wouldn't think of demanding that they remove any religious symbols off their living room wall if they
"offend" me. Who would be the INTOLERANT ONE if I did that?

The operative principle of the ACLU is that no atheist or non-Christian should EVER be "exposed" to America's traditional religious symbols. Sounds awfully INTOLERANT of them if you were to ask ME!

From: Martin Atkins
Location: Akron, OH
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:48 AM Central Time

Our laws all stem fromthe constitution, which is clearly not a religous document. The founders of this country had every opportunity in the world to mention god in the constitution but did not. They understood this country was going to befilled up with Catholics, Anglicans and Jews and Baptists alike. Bringing "God" into our system of laws creates the opportunity for whoever is in power to say: "Well clearly the god in the constitution is MY god, and that gives me the authority under god to do ________." This is how England was run, and our founder knew better than to vest power in an invisible man in the sky. Now, in 2003, we have millions upon millions of Bhuddists and Hindus in this country. Some are immigrants, but most were born here just like you. They pay taxes just like you. They work hard and respect their neighbors, just like you. Although they bow down to gold statues, they are equal citizens because the judeo-christian value of "thou shalt not worship graven images" is completely divorced from civic life, and rightly so. Likewise "You shall have no god other than me" is not reflected in any law anywhere in this country. It has no bearing on citizenship whatsoever. By carving these things in stone and sticking them in an official building, you are promulgating these statements as if they were the basis for laws that are on the books. "Do not steal" and "Do not murder" are fine to carve in stone and put in the statehouse. There are laws that correspond to these commandments. The fact is that in a free society, anyone can worship a "graven" image if they want and it doesn't have anything to do with their citizenship generally and the legal system in particular.

From: William W. Bayes
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Date: Monday, September 15, 2003 9:58 AM Central Time

I have already provided comments, but I want to thank you for publishing the comments of my fellow citizens. Many of these have added to my intellectual fodder to be used in dispelling the myth of "separation of church and state." Thanks to all the contributors.

From: Sam Weaver
Location: Sherman, TX
Date: Friday, September 12, 2003 10:37 PM Central Time

Sadly, far too many "conservative" voices have weighed in on the side of the courts in this crucial matter of the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama. The argument is that unless we adhere to the rule of law, then we will descend into anarchy--or some variation thereof. I firmly believe that two points MUST be made here!

The first point involves the rule of law. It is a fact that America was steadfastly founded upon the rule of law. What separates the United States of America from EVERY OTHER nation on the face of this earth, however, is that America rejected both the LAWS and the RULE of MAN and fully embraced the RULE OF THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD. "No King but King Jesus" was just one of the rallying cries. "Give me liberty or give me death," was another.

Those who say that the "rule of law" must be respected in this case apparently cannot comprehend the concept that the rule of MAN'S law (i. e., legislation from a king, a dictator, a bureacratic entity, OR A COURT!) is the recipe for tyranny and control. They just cannot grasp the absolute fact that the entire concept of American liberty and justice was rooted in the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God! In other words, the "rule of law"--BY AMERICAN STANDARDS--is the Law of Nature and Nature's God. It is NOT the rule of a dictator, a king, a bureaucratic agency, a court, or even the majority will of the people! These very things are the ENEMIES OF AMERICAN LIBERTY AND JUSTICE!

My second point begs the question, "What is better, anarchy or tyranny? The state of anarchy is a state of lawlessness and disorder. In a state of anarchy, moral, educated and informed leaders have a good degree of hope to bring the society back to a state of law and order and justice. In a state of tyranny, society is all but doomed to obey the mandates and the dictates of the ruling power(s).

The Honorable Judge Roy Moore is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! America was founded upon the rule of law. America is a GREAT NATION because the rule of law is (was) established upon the Laws of Nature and Nature's God! America is a GREAT NATION because the rule of man (King George III, initially) was rejected! American culture is slipping away from us because far too many of us Americans are far too eager to place our faith and trust in the laws, theories, word and will of MAN and are far to hesistant to acknowledge the Laws and Truth of our Creator and the Author of LAW!

The more we allow the tyranny of the law (rule) of man to replace the liberty that the Laws of Nature and Nature's God afford to every human being, the more the American Ideal and the American Dream become a distant and unattainable memory.

From: Dale and Brenda Hammond
Location: Winder, GA
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2003 6:27 PM Central Time

My wife and I are out in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, this week and missed you at a 10 Commandments rally in our home town of Winder, Georgia, but we have already heard that a large crowd came out and we praise and thank God for all concerned Christians. Thanks Alan for coming to Winder and helping all of us stand against the 'Anti Christ Litigation Union' (ACLU). They, like most of our judges, and Congress, have ruined our beloved America. we are praying for you and your stand and I just wish you were the President or a Supreme Court judge in America right now. we need men like you and Clarence Thomas to be strong and bold in Jesus Christ. President Bush does a lot but could stand a lot stronger in public, against all the false gods that he seems to tolerate. We need leaders who will stand up and pray everywhere to God and close all their prayers in Jesus' name if they want the prayers answered, so stand strong Alan and thanks again for coming to Winder, GA. today.

Yours in Christ,
Dale and Brenda Hammond
Winder, GA

From: Tara Wheeler
Location: Washington, D.C.
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:55 PM Central Time

Dear Mr. Keyes,

I have been a little troubled with many of the major court rulings this year. I have not heard anyone argue against them and i am getting seriously worried about our country and it's morals. Thank God you are out there doing the work that many have glossed over. In looking at your paper, "On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says, Aug. 26, 2003" i believe you may be able to go far with this. Thank you for your wise voice. I wish you the best!

From: Curtis Dahlgren
Location: Michigan
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 7:07 PM Central Time

September 10, 2003

Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel
Since God is marching on . . .

What's maddening about current events is, the pre-l973 bans on abortion-on-demand could be restored by Sept. 11, 2004 if the American people WANTED them restored. All it would take is a Constitutional Amendment. The Ten Commandment monument could be restored if the people WANTED it restored. A little time and the appointment of new judges might be required, but it could be done.

But do enough people care? It would appear not, but still Americans are among the most independent people in the whole world, and I encourage myself often by thinking of the attempt to sell the metric system to us a few years back, and how Americans simply didn't "buy" it.

Fob James III correctly brings up the Lincoln-Douglas debates, a concrete example of how even the so-called "law of the land" CAN be rectified. Sometimes it takes a few decades of debate, sweat, and prayer, but it's important right now to keep putting out the message that it CAN be done. As Lincoln said more than once in more than one way, it all essentially depends on whether we DESERVE it or not.

In "The Religion of Abraham Lincoln" by William Wolf, there is this passage: "The prophetic note of a God of mercy Who punishes the sins of men in the judgments of history with a view to reformation would become a dominant theme in his later religious utterances, especially in his presidential proclamations. . .
"The Puritan heritage distilled through the l8th century patriots without however, the loss of its original religious strength explains many features in Lincoln's thought. It is teh background for the predestinating will of God, for corporate and individual responsibility, for the direction of democracy as a way, FOR AMERICA AS GOD'S 'ALMOST CHOSEN PEOPLE'. . for the possibility of making a solemn vow and covenant with God and observing its historical results, for the importance of 'DISCERNING THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES'" [my emphasis!]

America needs to come out of the zombie mode and discern the signs of the times. In pre-Revolutionary War days, America had Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams who had the vision to help the colonists see the signs of the times. In Lincoln's times, he was virtually a lone eagle in the early weeks of l860 until the people became stirred. These days, we have Alan Keyes, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and a handful of such leaders; will our President or the next President do the right things? Or will they continue to "buy" this "law of the land" lie, as the people "tolerated" the Dred Scott decision?

Since I have on hand a copy of Lincoln's Cooper Institute speech in New York City, Feb. 27, 1860, follow Lincoln's logic here on whether a Supreme Court ruling is NECESSARILY the Law of the Land forever and ever:

"Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court [has] decided the question for you in a sort of way. . it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact - the statement in the opinion that 'the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution' . . neither the word 'slave' nor 'slavery' is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word 'property' even, in any connection with language alluding to things slave or slavery, and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a 'person' - and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as 'service or labor which may be due,' as a debt payable in service or labor.

Can you picture it? This funny-looking rail-splitter with a funny-sounding voice was telling a large crowd of NEW YORKERS that the Supreme Court was full of baloney, and the New York Times came out and supported the skinny rail-splitter for President. It's sad that it took a war for the idea to win out that the authors of the Constitution "excluded from the Constitution the idea there could be property in man," because England outlawed slavery without a Civil War. It took William Wilburforce many many years, but he kept trying to legislate it out of existence until he virtually wore down the opposition.

On the eve of the second anniversary of New York City's greatest tragedy, we would all do well to say a prayer for not only NYC but for this whole nation in which we have restored PROPERTY IN MAN through the abortion of late-term abortions and the sale of their body parts. Enough said?


From: Victoria Wyatt
Date: Monday, September 8, 2003 1:37 AM Central Time

What is happening in Alabama was spoken of almost prophetically in the Supreme Court sodomy decision, when Justice Scalia suggested that decision had undermined our entire system of law:

"...and if the passage calls into question the government's power to regulate actions based on one's self-defined 'concept of existence, etc.,' it is the passage that ate the rule of law."

Yet the Supreme Court did call into question that very right of government. So the question in this case becomes: if government may not regulate actions based on one's self-defined concept of existence, and one's concept of existence certainly includes one's concept of religion and its appropriate place in public life, therefore, by the same logic every citizen (or state) has an individual right to define for himself the propriety or lack thereof of the monument's place in Alabama.

Of course, what it really means is that they've made a travesty of our entire legal system, including the Constitution. By the logic they're applying to current decisions, the system doesn't work anymore. And when it stops working, people will stop valuing it and will become willing, even eager, to throw it out.

Perhaps other dissenting opinions might also warn about the undermining of our legal system, but that could take weeks if not months to research.

I don't think we can stress too hard the importance of every citizen lobbying, individually and collectively, in defense of his rights and in defense of the Constitution. Apathy and a pervasive sense of "all is well" have gotten us where we are today. People have to wake up or we're soon going to find it's too late.

Muscles, in order to remain strong, must be flexed. They need weight. The heavier the weight, the stronger the muscles. The citizen who does not exercise or defend his rights has little advantage over the person who has no rights. Indeed, if failure to do something continues long enough, those rights, like unused muscles, will weaken, deteriorate, and become ineffectual.

I believe people are getting fed up. You wouldn't believe the e-mails I got from people cheering my daughter on in her participation in the demonstration in Montgomery, Alabama. People who generally have no interest in politics wrote angrily about how fed up they are with this separation of church and state garbage. There's a lot of frustration out there. I see Alan Keyes as the leader who can mobilize a vast concerned citizenry by giving them a channel to work through. People just need to know where to turn for leadership, and what they can do.

From: William W Bayes
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Date: Friday, September 5, 2003 8:51 AM Central Time

I am astonished that no one, especially Judge Moore's eight fellow justices, the State Attorney General, and the Governor, don't seem to care that a federal judge issued an order with no basis in law. And I am even more surprised that an organization with as much litigation experience as the ACLU would direct the lawsuit against Judge Moore as an individual, rather than against the State, where the Constitution would be relevant. But the Constitution can't legally be used against an individual person.

William W. Bayes
Simi Valley, CA

From: Gary Johnson
Date: Saturday, August 30, 2003 8:43 AM Central Time

Correct me if I am wrong. I have not heard or seen any comments of "Thanks" directed toward the momument company, Clark Memorial, for taking a stand and refusing to remove, because of personnal and business reasons, the Ten Commandment Monument from the Judicial Bulding. I hope Mr Keyes and other leaders can remember. I am glad Mr. Keyes is in Montgomery!!

From: Mike J Bigg
Location: Kansas City, MO
Date: Friday, August 29, 2003 3:22 PM Central Time

Sir, Mr. Keyes,

Thank you for your stance with Judge Roy Moore on the Constitutional issue at hand. Below is a letter I wrote to Janet Parshall, an awesome Christian radio host, requesting her to contact you. I don't know if any of this is possible. I do know that she has a respected radio show with a large audience. I also know that this nation needs to be educated, and Alan Keyes is one of the best teachers available on this subject.

Thank you and may God bless all of your efforts in this battle!

mike bigg
kansas city, mo

----- Forwarded by Mike J Bigg/KC/HALLMARK on 08/29/03 03:14 PM -----


Thank you for your voice! I listen daily whenever I can on the way home from work. On last Weds (?) you and your husband were discussing the current issue of Judge Roy Moore's rejecting a Federal Court order. I do respect Craig and yourself, and have enjoyed listening to his wisdom and experience in the past. I have to be honest in telling you that I strongly disagree with nearly every point that he made on this issue. I believe there is a biblical principle of stewardship that he is forgetting. God graced us with this nation founded upon His laws and principles. We are guilty of neglect and greater sins when we refuse to fight the battle to uphold what He has placed into our stewardship. I believe strongly that this is a Constitutional issue. We are guilty of being nearly 50 years late in joining this battle. If not through civil disobedience and confrontation how are unlawful judgements corrected?

My request is that you try to get Mr. Alan Keyes on your show to present the strong legal basis for this battle. If your husband could join that would be great. You are an awesome gift to America, and specifically the body of believers in America. Please present the opposing views on this issue. If the Christians in this nation do not stand up to defend the heritage that God has given us, we will surely loose the freedoms it created. The bottom line is that The Rule of Law Must Be Upheld. That begins with the Constitution, not an individual's interpretation or bias.

Thank for your heart,

mike bigg
kansas city, mo

From: Sue Craig
Location: Massillon OH
Date: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:29 AM Central Time

Sirs, I would like to suggest a way for making the new position of the monument untenable. On a steady basis have people apply to the Court House to view the monument over a substantial period of time. This would be most effective if the monument is in some out of the way closed area that needs to be opened each time it is viewed therefore I would space the visits out so that they have time to close it up each time. Respectfully yours, Susan Craig, Massillon OH.

From: James Howard
Date: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:14 AM Central Time

This issue is about judicial tyranny more than anything. Judicial tyranny ever since Dred Scott, Plessy vs Ferguson, Roe v Wade, The prayer rulings in 1962/63 and now this. This has got to stop. The remedy is judicial accountability and limited office tenure and improved selection process and removal of the bad ones.


From: Damiyen
Date: Thursday, August 29, 2003 12:02 AM Central Time

Dr. Keyes,

I just want to thank you for fighting for our rights, and defending the right to aknowledge God. I am convinced now more than ever of the liberal agenda to secularize our nation. In the news today was a picture from a music awards show, depicting Madonna and Brittany Spears engaging in an open mouthed kiss. I have two young children, and am seriously contemplating getting rid of cable t.v. I have been inspired by your speeches and commentary to teach my children about our glorious history, and to teach them to stand up for what is right. I commend you for your courage and perseverance in standing for true American values. It is people like you and Judge Moore that I respect. Below you will find the lyrics to the 'Battle Hymn of the Republic'. I suggest this should be theme song in Alabama....enjoy:

The Battle Hymn of the Republic

Julia Ward Howe
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored,
He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps
l can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps
His day is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnish`d rows of steel,
"As ye deal with my contemners, So with you my grace shall deal;"
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel
Since God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

From: Steven Flanders
Location: Denver, CO
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:35 PM Central Time

Dr. Keyes,

I have read your analysis of the First Amendment, and agree wholeheartedly. I have been researching and thinking about this issue for many years, written a couple of unpublished books, and would like to offer you whatever assistance I can.

First of all, as to strategy. I agree with you that the solution lies in the U.S. Congress exercising its checking power under Art.III, sec.2, second sentence of the second paragraph. But while that is the technical mechanism we can use to reverse this usurpation by the federal Courts, it will not work unless we have generated a popular understanding that agrees with the move. In that regard I would like to offer you some of the ammunition I have gathered over the years.

I will assume that you have researched out the way the First Amendment fell into abuse, but let me demonstrate my bonafides to you, to win some of your confidence. As far as I can determine, the problem began in 1875 with the case of U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552. In that case, in which the Court was desperate to deny equal protection of the law to African-Americans in Louisiana, the Court asserted as an aside that if the victims were meeting to petition the Federal government, then the states were bound to protect that right. I disagree with the entire reasoning of the Court on this case, but it must be mentioned, because it is the only case cited as precedent by Mr. Justice Harlan in his famous dissent from 1905 in Patterson v Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462.

In that dissent Mr. Justice Harlan put forth the strongest case I've ever read for establishing an atheistic secular humanism at the federal level. The whole Court didn't agree with him at the time, but did state that they left undecided whether or not the 1st Amendment was contained within the 14th Amendment. What happened after that is the Court slowly started to assert, over the course of the next thirty years, that the 1st was so included, even though they avoided any public outcry by finding other reasons to uphold the local and state laws. It wasn't until the 1930s that they started overturning state laws on that basis, and not until 1947 that they started to assert that there is a "separation of church and state." Everson v Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1.

So I've done my homework. The Court's blunder is, as you say, in using the 14th Amendment to apply the 1st Amendment to the states. As I phrase it, the mistake was in seeing the 1st Amendment as a statement of individual immunity or privilege; it is not. It is simply a limit on the Congress, unlike the other amendments in the bill of rights (at least 2-9) and only by indirect implication in combination with the 10th Amendment does it act to reserve powers to the states.

I think the most important thing to be done in winning the hearts and minds of the people is to awaken them to the wisdom of the 1st Amendment, as written. My first piece of bumper sticker logic to offer in this effort is, "Separation of Church and State is a Myth." The addendum is that it a dangerous, impossible myth: impossible to achieve, dangerous to pursue.

Look at every country on earth. The issue of moral government always come up, and always have to be dealt with. Everywhere, including here, there are legal limits to speech, and press, and there are always laws informed by some locally approved belief systems. It is impossible to be neutral. These issues always come up in every system, and the genius of the American system is that it forbade the central, or federal government from being involved with these issues. (By the way, have you read some of Thomas Jefferson's thinking on this subject. Try his second inaugural address, or for an even more radical shot, read "The Kentucky Resolutions" which he authored in response to the alien and sedition acts.)

To further persuade the American people to the wisdom of this approach, if they need further reasons to prevent this secular humanist theocracy from becoming more powerful, we should re-invigorate a vision of liberty. Since it is impossible for the government to be neutral, or completely separate, from the state, almost all the powers (except those that are in the U.S. Constitution, like prohibitions on slavery, voting rights, etc) of moral self government would be most wisely enshrined in the state or local governments. I think the strongest point we could make to the American people would be to plant a vision in their minds about what such a society would look like. Think of the tremendous variety of cultural styles that the individual would then have to choose from. At least fifty, and in all probability since many states would pass those powers on to the local level, there would be many hundreds. Then a person could choose to join together with others of like minds, to live together in communities of agreement. If they wanted no porn on the streets, no topless dancing or flag burning, they could have it. If they wanted prayer in schools, and the Bible taught as the basis of morality, they could. In other words, with the 1st Amendment back in force, we could live and raise our families in a social environment we find agreeable. And yes, there would undoubtedly emerge secular humanist states. Fine, if the decisions are all made at the state level. I'm confident that if they have to compare themselves with their more God fearing neighbors, they will see the error of their ways in a generation or two as they undergo social breakdown. What's more, not only would individuals have a much wider variety of cultures from which to choose to live, but once they make that choice, they can have a real affect on that local culture, being much more empowered and capable than today of bringing it into conformity with their ideal.

So I think that is the best way to proceed in this crusade. Present a vision of liberty functioning as envisioned by the Founders, with many more choices to the individual, and much more power residing with the individual. Then contrast that vision with the society that has resulted from the abuse of the 1st Amendment, where the federal Courts have usurped all the powers of moral self government from the people, with the homogenized culture, the dearth of real cultural choices, the disempowerment of the individual, and the apathy and moral decay that has inevitably resulted.

Thanks for your efforts and time,
Steven C. Flanders
Denver, CO

From: Tim James
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 5:49 PM Central Time

Dr. Keyes, I attended the rally in Montgomery today and heard you speak, and appreciate your strong stand. Below is a paper my brother Fob James III wrote on the subject and released today.

May God Bless You,

Tim James



Fob James III
August 28, 2003

Governor Bob Riley, Attorney-General Bill Pryor, and all eight Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court, have now removed the Ten Commandments from "public view" in the Alabama judicial building. They have also joined in condemnation of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for disobeying the federal court that ordered removal of the Commandments. In removing the Commandments, all these officials have said they must follow the "rule of law." Yesterday, George W. Bush, through a spokesman, similarly stated about the Commandments' removal, "It is important that we respect our laws and our courts." In addition, others such as evangelist Pat Robertson, Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, and attorney Jay Sekulow have added their voices in criticism of Chief Justice Moore. They say that although they personally think the display of the Ten Commandments is constitutional, Moore should have taken the Commandments down anyway because to disobey the court order would be to violate the "rule of law."

It is the issue of the "rule of law," and the spiritual implications of this issue at the present time, that American Christians must face.

The basic claim made by U.S. Supreme Court Justices about themselves, well known in the higher echelons of the legal profession, is two fold. First, they claim that due to their superior "disinterestedness and detachment" as judges, they can change the "fundamental principles of our society," that is, change America's fundamental law (see Bartkus v. Illinois). Second, they say that when they change America's fundamental law, all officials of government in the whole nation must obey them. The Supreme Court uses this self-endowed power of constitutional amendment to do things they personally want to do — like remove the Ten Commandments from the schools and courts of the land. To insulate themselves from any political accountability for changing the fundamental law, Supreme Court Justices and lower courts use their power over the economic interests of millions of Americans in lawsuits before them — as leverage to keep anyone who would ever seriously challenge their power — in line. There is no genuine respect for the courts today — and much fear, with good reason, of financial repercussions from vindictive judges throughout the legal system. The chief source of lawlessness in American society is the U.S. Supreme Court, and the nation's most accomplished liars are the lawyers and judges who perpetuate this system of unlimited judicial power, calling it, with unbridled deceit, the "rule of law."

When people say that Roy Moore is not above the "rule of law," they are right. But neither are the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court above the "rule of law." The Constitution, with its mandate that only a constitutional amendment — not the Supreme Court — can change the nation's fundamental law, is what is binding on Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Riley, all members of the Alabama Supreme Court, all members of the federal judiciary, and the President. But the liars on the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts won't accept the "rule of law" for themselves.

By claiming for themselves the "final say" on what the Constitution means, and also claiming the power to change the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices in effect claim the "final say" on everything. Any legal system in which one institution has power to determine the fundamental law, and all others must obey it, is nothing more than a law unto itself. This was obvious to Lincoln, who made this point in his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, and who as President refused to obey deceitful Supreme Court decisions. The U.S. Constitution gives no "final say" to the judicial branch, it gives no power to determine "fundamental principles" to the judicial branch — these powers have been usurped by a judiciary and a legal profession for whom integrity and truthfulness in the exercise of power are unknown or forbidden concepts. America's judges, who currently rule this nation, both in the federal and most state governments, epitomize the very spirit of lawlessness.

Pryor and the eight Alabama Supreme Court Justices have also claimed that they must follow their "oath of office" to obey Supreme Court decisions. But under Article VI of the Constitution, the oath is not to the "Supreme Court." Rather, the oath is to "this Constitution," the one ordained by the "people of the United States" as the ultimate lawmakers in our American legal system. All of us together are the people who have authority to make legal constitutional change in this country, but we have largely been replaced in that role by the lying United States Supreme Court.

What Pryor and the eight Alabama Supreme Court Justices mean, when they speak of the "oath of office," is that they have no god but caesar, and that caesar is the U.S. Supreme Court. And so they accept it, in the name of the "rule of law," when 40 million children die by the Supreme Court's hand. They accept it, in the name of the rule of law, when a national homosexual "non-discrimination" policy is imposed. Similarly to U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft, Bill Pryor can say from his mouth in testimony before Congress that abortion is the "slaughter" of unborn children, but then raise his arm in an "oath" to uphold the Supreme Court decisions that send them to the slaughter. Do Ashcroft and Pryor and the others not realize that by doing this they are embracing, indeed worshipping, the very spirit of lawlessness ascendant in the U.S. Supreme Court? The scriptures say that the culmination of lawlessness will occur before the return of Jesus of Nazareth.

2000 years ago, in the Judean wilderness, Jesus the Messiah was taken to a high mountain and offered "all the kingdoms of this world and their glory," by satan. "All this authority I will give to you…for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish," said satan. Only "fall down and worship me," urged satan. "Worship' has always been inextricably tied to the issue of "authority." If Jesus had accepted the offer to fall down and worship in order to have this world's "authority," he would have avoided the cross. And all of us would be lost for eternity. But Jesus rebuked the fallen angel and worshipped His Father alone. Then he went to a Roman cross to shed His blood and die to bear all of our sins. The least we can do now, even if it is costly to us in this world, is to worship this God who redeemed us, seeking to obey His first commandment — now "removed" by idolatrous officials who will be judged by this very commandment -

"I am the Lord Your God who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; you shall have no other gods before Me."

Fob James III
Birmingham, Alabama
August 28, 2003

Fob James III is one of three sons of former Alabama Governor Fob James, Jr. His father — an All-American halfback at Auburn University in 1955 — has the distinction of being elected to his first term in 1978 as a Democrat, and to a second term in 1994 as a Republican. Fob James III has been active as an attorney representing the rights of free speech and religious expression.

From: William Hunt
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:05 PM Central Time

Not Fit for Public Viewing

The "Ten Commandments", written by Gods' own hand and passed on to us, is being handled in the same manner as Pornographic or other indecent work. It is to be kept from public viewing by hiding under counters, placed in rooms not accessible to the public, hidden by a cover or to be placed in a brown bag for fear of offending peoples' sensitivities. The Ten Commandments are protected by law and should not to be censored.

The Ten Commandment Monument in the Alabama Supreme Court portrays the foundation of our US constitution and laws. It was artistically done and is a good work of art. As art, the monument is protected.

But our federal courts and other concurring US citizens say writings and art, associated with God, can not be displayed in our public places where we the public may view it.

From: Jim Hauser
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:44 PM Central Time


Send In the Clowns

By Jim Hauser

August 28, 2003

"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."

The words are simple enough, they were written in English and they require no “translation” by parties who have no business translating them in the first place. Yet these simple words have become twisted out of context to the point that their meaning, as defined by activist judges and so called legal and historical scholars, has little to do with the intent of the framers of our Constitution.

The recent events involving Judge Roy Moore and his monument of the Ten Commandments has once again ignited the debate that centers on the phrase, “separation of church and state” - sometimes coupled with the word “constitutional,” yet that phrase is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, nor is it mentioned anecdotally by anyone who wrote the constitution.

Let’s take a look at the First Amendment again, in case you didn’t know what that was. "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."

It starts out by saying that “Congress shall make no law..” This is important because it makes several very important points. First of all, “Congress” is singular. If the framers of the Constitution were referencing the federal as well as the state legislatures they would have said “no congress” or “congresses.” That’s not what they said because that’s not what they meant. In this case “congress” is clearly a reference to the United States Senate and House of Representatives.

Secondly, “congress shall make no law,” simply put and without extraneous legal translation means that there can be no federal law establishing or restricting religion. Judge Moore is by no means a part of the United States congress nor did he pass any laws promoting a particular religion. The first amendment said nothing about the judicial or executive branches creating laws because it was never intended that they do so – that would come later.

So where does the phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It came from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802. In the letter he was trying to assure the Danbury congregation that the federal legislature, because of the First Amendment, would not try to establish Congregationalism as the national religion. Jefferson was clearly talking about religious denominations.

The phrase that Thomas Jefferson coined in that personal letter went on to become the primary “legal argument” for future Supreme Court decisions regarding the First Amendment. It also became the rallying cry for ant-religious organizations who, to this day, falsely characterize Jefferson as an atheist.

If we really want to know what Jefferson thought of religious freedom we need to look at a piece of legislation that he wrote for the House of Delegates in Virginia in June of 1779.

“We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

The version used here is the bill as Jefferson originally wrote it so as to show exactly what he had in mind. It should be noted that nowhere in this bill can you find the phrase, “separation of church and state.”

In subsequent years the Supreme Court authorized itself to become the sole authority on all matters constitutional while, at the same time, usurping the power of legislation from congress.

In their “interpretations” of the Constitution they refer to what they think the authors of the document “really meant.” To support their position on the First Amendment they refer to the fictitious “constitutional separation of church and state,” based on a private letter of a one-time United States President who had little if anything to do with drafting the First Amendment.

It sets a dangerous precedent when law is dispensed based on personal letters and opinions chosen to fit the needs of the day. We may one day see future Supreme Courts making constitutional decisions based on the personal notes of one William Jefferson Clinton as he outlines the details of his extra-curricular activities.

But the opinions that really do matter are those that are set in ink and subsequently become law. When the constitution was ratified it was done so as it was written, without footnotes referencing personal opinions or personal letters. It was done so without a disclaimer that said it may be subject to unconstitutional interpretations by future judicial activists.

Such caveats were not needed because the founding fathers made provisions to amend the document if clarifications of certain principals were required. However, amendments are intentionally difficult to add to the Constitution and they require wide constituent support in order to get past first base – but judicial mandates by a select few are another story.

What we have now is a federal judiciary that has empowered itself to make laws as it sees fit based on the personal ideology of its individual members. It is a federal judiciary whose membership is controlled by a few individuals sitting on a Senate Committee that refuses to obey constitutional law and allow judicial conformation votes by the entire Senate.

I might add at this point that it was the Seventeenth Amendment that helped set up this situation but that will be the subject (again) of a future article.

This whole business of Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments is being characterized by many on both sides of the fence to be nothing more than a three ring circus with Judge Moore as the main attraction. But the real clowns wear black robes and sit behind a bench in Washington DC.

The Supreme Court refused to hear his case because it would be them, and not Judge Moore, who would have to defend a legal position, that if ever overturned would set a reverse precedent on past Supreme Court decisions.

In the end, the rule of law must prevail for the sake of our civilization and civil disobedience should only be used to make a point. Judge Roy Moore excelled in making his and we must thank him for doing so.

Conservative critics of Judge Moore say that his actions will only energize the likes of the ACLU and others who would promote secular humanism or atheism, as the national religion.

If that is the case then the actions of our Supreme Court should do even more to energize the legions of voters who, when they finally wake up, see that our country is heading in the wrong direction and change the complexion of the Senate. Or, perhaps it has already been happening for quite some time now.


It would only be appropriate if Thomas Jefferson had the final word on this. I’ll try not to misquote or take his words out of context.

“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or [burdens,] or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1779

Jim Hauser

From: G. Smith
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:28 PM Central Time

Just a thought for Alan Keyes. I am in total support of what he is doing for the people in Alabama. If they can't have the Ten Commandments in their Court House, then all of the Muslim women walking around with Burkihas should have to shed them. We need to keep freedom equal for all religions. Right?

From: Kim Johnson
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:19 PM Central Time

Tonight starts the month of Elul on the Hebrew Calendar. It was this month according to Jewish History that Moses reascended to Mt Sinai to interced for the children of Israel after the incident with the Golden Calf. Moses fasted and prayed forty days and night, at the end of which God rewrote the Ten Commandments upon the two new tablets of stone. In the meantime, the Shofar was blown in the Camp for forty days and nights and the people repented daily. Subsequently, at the end of the forty days the Ten Commandments were restored to the Nation and received into the hearts of the people.

See article below.

Reverend Kim Johnson
Author Teach Us To Fast and Prayer
International Lecturer on Prayer and Judeo-Christian Studies


"The Month of Reckoning"
The Ten Commandments Connection

"And the LORD passed by before Moses and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty: visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." Exodus 34:6-7

"Elul" is the sixth month of the Hebrew Calendar. It specifically means "to return to your God" or "Repentance." It is also an acronym representing the Words "Ani L'Dodi V'Dodi Li" — "I am my Beloved's and my Beloved is mine" (Song of Songs 6:3).

Elul is considered to be "The Month of Reckoning" in Hebrew tradition. It is a time when God draws near in a special way to man for the explicit purpose of enabling him to make an accurate accounting of his soul for everything that has occurred during the course of the year. Just as in the secular world man must give account for the conduct of his affairs and actions, as in a yearly job performance review, so it is, that God takes an account of every individual and nation each year. This yearly accounting, according to ancient Hebrew tradition, begins with the month of Elul. It is a time when man prepares his heart for the Days of Awe. What are the Days of Awe? They are the ten holy days beginning with Rosh HaShana (September 27) — The Day of Judgment — the 1st day of the Seventh month and ending on the 10th day — Yom Kippur (October 7) — The Day of Atonement or the Day of Salvation. It is during these ten days that the LORD takes off His robes of intercession and puts on His royal robes as King and Judge. The "Book of Life" and the "Book of Deeds" are opened for the review of all humanity and nations.

What is reviewed? The Book of Life — Is Your Name There? The Book of Deeds — Man's obedience to God's Word (Commandments), His usage of the talents given him by God and how he has treated his neighbor. What is reviewed among the nations? How they treated Israel over the past year.

Forgiveness (Selichah) is the primary theme of Elul. It is a time of making right with those you have wronged and vice verse. A time of deep soul searching and repentance, while returning to God with your whole heart. It is a time of asking for and receiving forgiveness from God as well as among those who have transgressed against you and among those whom you have transgressed.


According to Jewish History, Four significant events took place during the month of Elul. 1) The World was created on the 25th of Elul, culminating with the creation of Man of Rosh HaShana — The New Year of Creation. 2) Elul is the time period when Moses went up the "Second Time" to the top of Mount Sinai to receive the second set of "The Ten Commandments" from God. 3) Nehemiah and the people finished rebuilding the wall on the 25th of Elul. 4) The spies who gave their evil report of "the land of Israel" died in a plague on the 17th of Elul.

Of all four events, let's examine Moses and the giving of the second set of "The Ten Commandments," in light of the fact that "Our Nation" is in crises over this very issue! As you recall, the first "set of tablets" was destroyed when Moses threw them to the bottom of the Mount because the Hebrew children had gone astray from God. How? By replacing Him with a Golden Calf, eating, drinking and playing (whoredoms, fornication, adultery, vile sexual sin, lust)

It is in this setting, that Moses intercedes on behalf of the people and God reveals his nature to Moses as noted in Exodus 34:6-7(quoted above). Moses enters into a depth of intercession that causes him to ask God to "blot him out" if he had no intent of forgiving the people. In other words, Moses was willing to go to Hell for the redemption of his people. He truly understood the goodness and the severity of God — A severity he could not bear to allow come upon his people.

The result of Moses' intercession for forty days and nights upon the Mount (a second time) was the restoration of "The Ten Commandments" in the Camp, and restoration/redemption of the people to God. This took place on the day known as Yom Kippur. During the forty days that Moses interceded upon the mount, Jewish tradition states that the Shofar was blown daily in the Camp. Daily the people were reminded of their sinful ways and daily they repented of their wickedness. And God Heard! Hence, when Moses returned with the "second set" of "The Ten Commandments" the people's hearts were prepared to hear and receive the Word of God! It was restoration time!

Today, the beginning of Elul, our Nation is in a battle over the very existence of "The Ten Commandments" in America. To date "The Ten Commandments" have become broken by the idolatry (eating, drinking, playing — sexual perversion) of our Judeo-Christian nation, even amidst the Christian community. We no longer have the "Fear of God" nor do we desire "to follow the moral guidelines of God." "The Ten Commandments" are the moral fiber that under girds the Constitution of the United States and governs our Nation. They are the "Ten Words" that have made us a great nation. God's sovereign rule in America is what has afforded us such a prosperous and blessed nation — nothing else.

Over the next forty days, God is calling the Church, All leaders and saints, to a time of intercession for the Church and America. It is a time of deep soul searching and repentance for the wickedness of our ways. God is calling us to forty days of fasting and repentance! God desires to restore "The Ten Commandments" to the people. But, to accomplish this, the people's hearts must be prepared to receive His Word! We must put away every sin and the weight that does so easily beset us.

The Anti-Christ spirit and the Gay Agenda is desiring not only to remove the monument containing "The Ten Commandments" from public view in Montgomery Alabama, as it represents God's governing guidelines for Holy Matrimony between men and women and the moral laws of this nation, but to remove the very right from the people to acknowledge God. Church we are fighting for the very existence of God, Himself, in our nation and the earth. WITHOUT GOD PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHTS, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE TYRANNY OF DEPRAVITY AND EVIL. Our nation was birthed for the very purpose of establishing a haven for humanity. Furthermore, as Christians we are forbidden, forbidden by God to submit to wickedness. We must stand in this hour for God and His Word! We ourselves must put away our sins, repent and return to God! Its Revival (Awakening) or Destruction — There is no other choice!

Leaders and Saints — let us hear the call of God during the Month of Elul to repent and return to our Beloved and His ways! Let us call for radical prayer and fasting for a radical time in the history of mankind. Calling your congregation and friends to early Morning Prayer is a great place to start. Calling a Forty-Day chain fast in another. Let us not forget we are not fighting for ourselves but for generations to come.

With deep concern for the blood of my fellow man and our country's destiny,

Reverend Kim Johnson
Author Teach Us To Fast & Prayer

From: Greg Brayfield
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:33 AM Central Time

Dear Mr. Keyes,

Your explanation of the what the Constitution really says regarding the establishment of religion was the most informative piece I have read on the subject. Why didn't Constitutional scholars point this all out when the assault on religious freedom began in the late 20th century? Where were they when Madeline O'Hare was cajoling these power abusing judges into changing our laws? This debate needs to make it to the national stage and hopefully reform an out of control judicial system. I wish you the best in your fight for our freedom.


G. D. (Greg) Brayfield, P.E.
Lindsay Pope Brayfield & Assoc., Inc.

From: David Sleeter
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 5:16 PM Central Time

Hi Folks:

Though I'm not a member of any organized Judeo-Christian church, I believe strongly in the principles embodied in the Ten Commandments, and I've been deeply disappointed at the events now unfolding in Alabama.

I HAVE AN IDEA ON HOW THE CITIZENS OF ALABAMA MIGHT SAVE THE MONUMENT, or at least keep the debate alive, and embarass the ACLU and the other people who are trying to remove it. And my idea is simple.

Since the stone-engraved monument that bears the Ten Commandments has been removed, invite teams of volunteers with good, strong voices, to stand on the steps of the courthouse, and continually READ the Ten Commandments to all who enter. They could do this in shifts, reading the Ten Commandments repeatedly and continually from morning to night. If I'm not mistaken, the message would still get through, and freedom of speech would prevent anyone from stopping these people. Give the forces who removed the monument a choice. Either put the monument back, or suffer presence of a permanent corps of volunteers, forever reading the Ten Commandments at the entrance to the courthouse. I haven't heard anyone interviewed on the news suggest this idea, so perhaps nobody has thought of it yet. I hope this helps, and keep up the good work.

David Sleeter, Moreno Valley, CA

From: Phil Wolf
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:15 PM Central Time

Dear Dr. Keyes:

I have just finished reading your recent article "On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says" and was prompted to write. Thank you for your dedication to upholding the right to acknowledge God Almighty in the public square precisely as our founding fathers intended. You frame the argument correctly and articulately illuminate what I feel is source of the problem, that is an activist, despotic judiciary, closing with the proper admonishment for us to get involved via our elected representatives.

God bless you and God bless Roy Moore. Keep up the good work. I am a single dad with a 12 year old son, so forgive me for not coming to Montgomery. I have emailed, faxed and telephoned my elected officials in Washington and in Georgia.

Best regards,

Phil Wolf
former Marine

From: Dorothy Glasser
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 7:12 PM Central Time

Why can't the right give the left back it's principles and make them follow their own standards? If any institution should open itself for non-traditional, or left wing proponents, shouldn't the left wing organizations open themselves for traditional, family oriented members?

Why doesn't some traditional group sue NOW or the ACLU in the same way we are being sued. For example some Catholics or or Christians who overtly speak of their faith are not readily apparent in the ACLU or NOW, etc. There may be some who claim a Christian belief, but I'm not talking about those whose faith is in the closet. How many members in the NOW will take out a rosary and pray as well as be commended by NOW for praying and speaking at length and with respect for their faith? If anyone in NOW says praying and speaking about religion is not allowed, sue them for discrimination, and condemn them for a lack of diversity. Perhaps if enough of us give them their argument back, the courts might start to see the fallacy in those arguments in general. All people have dignity and should be treated with dignity. That does not mean we should treat their beliefs with the same level of welcome and acceptance.

Also, the next time some horrible misrepresentation of my faith, such as the Blessed Mother with cow dung, is displayed, why don't we sue on the basis of separation of church and state when any government funds are used to promote this horror. We can call the display of the ten commandments art for those who don't have a strong religious belief. The rest of us will see it for another purpose.

From: William W Bayes
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 8:35 AM Central Time

Here are some points for discussing the subject case with the press or opponents.

1. Why should freedom of religion ('... or prohibit the free exercise thereof) not have the same validity as freedom of speech? No one says you may not exercise your right to free speech ANYWHERE, except that you may not holler "Fire" in a crowded theater. Why do liberals regard free speech as sacrosanct but not freedom of religion? The test of religious freedom is not whether you may exercise it in the home and in the church, because even Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union permitted that type of worship. The test is whether religion may enter the public square, the public arena, where it may inform the hearts and minds of citizens and compete with the atheism and agnosticism that IS allowed in the public sector.

2. When has a Federal court ever invoked the second part of the religion clause (" ... or prohibit the free exercise thereof)? When has it ever acted to PROTECT and DEFEND religious freedom? When have the opponents of Judge Roy Moore ever spoken or acted in DEFENSE of religious freedom? For them, it does not exist.

3. Just as Rosa Parks was ordered to the back of the bus, so Justice (?) Myron Thompson has ordered God to the back of the bus, if not off the bus. And just as Rosa Parks rightfully refused that unjust, unlawful order, so Chief Justice Roy Moore refused to obey the Federal Courts' unlawful order.

4. How can an INDIVIDUAL person be guilty of violating the First Amendment, when it pertains only to Congress (or, as some would mistakenly have it, to Congress and the respective states)? For Judge Moore to be guilty of anything, he must have violated -- not the Constitution, which does not restrain individual persons -- but a law. As Alan Keyes keeps asking, what law did Judge Moore violate?

5. For rhetoric. Just as the fictional vampires would cringe and back off from a cross, so the modern cultural vampires (who seek to suck religious freedom from the culture) fear the cross and the Ten Commandments. They are all believers in big, over-arching government, and such statists have always feared religion as a rival for the hearts and minds of the people. They fear the recognition of God, because they want no power to stand, even symbolically, above that of the state. And the fear religion, because its emphasis upon humility puts restraints upon man's passion for power over the people. To the contrary, the Founders of this Nation sought to put chains on man's appetite for power and upon the vehicle, the state, that man uses to exercise that power.

4. Just for the sake of argument, Christians compose what? 90 percent of the population? The lion's share of taxes is paid by Christians. [You may substitute "believers" for "Christians," if necessary]. To forbid any mention or recognition of religion in the public sector is taxation without representation. To leave the public sector for the exclusive habitation of atheists and agnostics is to grant those persons, a tiny percentage of the population, a great privilege. This is turning democracy on its head. This is elitism of the worst sort.

5. Finally, just as certain words (please look 'em up, my old mind is tired) were said to be used as "code" during the civil rights battles of many years ago, so the opponents of religious freedom have twisted and misinterpreted the words of Thomas Jefferson (wall of separation between church and state) as code to hide their hidden agenda, which is anti-Christian, and which is designed to remove all vestiges of God from the public sector (coinage, chaplains in senate and house, etc.) and turn the United States into a godless land.

I hope these ideas/rhetorical devices might be of some use to Judge Moore and to his supporters.

William W. Bayes
Simi Valley, CA

From: Rachel Whelan
Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:52 PM Central Time

Dear Mr. Keyes

I am sending you a copy of a poem that I wrote out of the frustration of seeing our liberties eroded more day by day.

You know we had to come here over 200 years ago to escape religious persecution. God forbid we are again driven out of our homeland by the intolerance of the 'tolerance' crowd.

I have watched you with great interest since your run for president. I am proud to know there are still men of such conviction as yourself and Judge Roy Moore on our side.

God bless you richly for standing with Judge Moore as he battles to defend our rights to acknowledge God.

(Rae Holbrook)

You may outlaw the name of God
Revoke my right to pray
But there are things despite your power
You cannot take away

There is a God who rules and reigns
All things unto this day
And His kingdom does not tremble
Despite what you may say

There is no power among you
That my God did not give
And it is by His power and grace
Not by your laws I live

I will try to follow your laws
But when I'm forced to choose
Between His law and your law
I'm sorry but you lose

I will proudly speak His name
Wherever I may be
Though you may chain my hands and feet
And take my liberty

For He is God and on His throne
Though you may say He's not
He is God and He shall rule
When you are long forgot

So write your laws and loud proclaim
Your edicts through the land
I will not bow my knee to you
Nor any other man

From: Linda Marvel
Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:14 AM Central Time

Hi, I just wanted to write to support the efforts many are making to retain the 10 Commandments display just where it is, near the Court building in Alabama. If no where else, this emblem needs to be near the people who make decisions as a reminder of moral values. Also, I am tired of anything "Christian" being null and void, but any other religion can express itself without opposition. Thank you for your stand. I will keep you in my prayers for success.

Linda Marvel

From: Steve Towns
Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:05 AM Central Time

I just wanted to thank Alan Keyes for his stand that he has taken concerning the Ten Commandments at the Alabama Judicial Building. I believe that basic rights guaranteed by our constitution that had to be won with the lives of many Americans that lived before us are being taken away by our activist judicial system. These judges dont have to risk their lives or careers as they sit in the courtroom and take control of our country and shape it according to their beliefs.

Steve Towns

From: Charles Baumgardner
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2003 10:47 PM Central Time


To Renew America,

I am not a religious person, but I do have feelings about rights regardless of the subject.

Some points I've made to those who want the monument in Alabama removed. I hope the Chief Justice Roy Moore will get these for his use.

Years ago there were several states who refused to allow sitting and association with minorities. A law was passed to allow minorities equal rights. Many opposed the law but it was passed anyway.

By the standards of those opposing the monument if the religious symbol is removed it would be the same as not allowing the minorities equal rights! Any device that is available to be seen or heard can be ignored by those who don't like it and those who do can have it! Those disliking blacks have that right and can act accordingly. Both the monument and granted equal availability of public places to minorities are in public places. If the judiciary takes one right then, by their standard they should feel the other right should be also taken. No one is forced to see anything they don't wish to see in this country. The words on the monument are small enough that a desired closeness of the person to it is required to read them. It is not a billboard.

Only political desire of the monument opponents is their interest and they need to remember they are wanting to steal the rights of those who want the monument in the same way segregationists wanted to steal the rights of blacks, for instance.

A restaurant or bus seat in the front of a bus are inanimate objects and blacks were forbidden from using them many places in the deep south before 1964. This kept them from having equal rights. These inanimate objects were in the public for the public use or desire of the public not to use as they saw fit.

This monument is an inanimate object in a public area for the public's choice to see or ignore as they see fit.

Blacks and Hispanics are both a minority. Those choosing to see this monument may also be a minority. To deprive one minority of their right by the First Amendment of the Constitution is as wrong as depriving another minority of its rights!

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."

If Congress shall make no law regarding those subjects mentioned in the First Amendment, then no court or other law-making authority has the right to do it either.

It is no more right to have jurisdiction to remove this monument because it is a religious object in a public place for the public to see than it would be to have jurisdiction make a law removing all churches from public view because they have religious objects upon them in sight of the public! The public has the option to either see both or ignore both as they see fit! And no government has the right to either establish or prohibit a religion.

If this monument has an affect on government then lets evict from office every solitary person in government that chooses to go to a church occasionally! Because anyone going to church occasionally is going to have their mind affected to some degree by doing so that it will likely cause an influence in their work in one way or another!

That this monument is on government property doesn't have any more affect on the judicial process than the judiciary attending church!

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

That leaves power to the individual states to govern without Federal intervention. This monument is a state issue, not a Federal issue because it is only happening in one state. Just like the windmill issue in Mass. The Federal government has no reason to voluntarily intervene in this issue either because it is an issue pertinent to only one state! The 10th Amendment gives each state the right to govern itself without Federal intervention on many issues.

Thank you for reading.

Charles Baumgardner

From: John Gregory
Location: Smithfield, NC
Date: Sunday, August 24, 2003 1:17 PM Central Time


First I would like to thank you for your efforts to protect the 10 Commandments Monument in Alabama.

Here is my suggestion: The federal court has ruled that the monument cannot be in public view, What should be done is to have a steel cover fabricated to cover the words on the monument which offend the federal court, the steel cover would be padlocked over the words on the monument which offends the federal court, on the steel cover would be written these words: The federal court has ruled that you cannot view or read the words words written underneath this cover.

The issue would then become a freedom of speech issue, I believe our side would win on appeal, and the steel cover could be removed.

Please pass this suggestion along and good luck in your efforts,


John Gregory

From: Erroll Ivery
Location: Montgomery Village, MD
Date: Saturday, August 23, 2003 2:48 PM Central Time

Hello everyone,

No doubt, you are aware that federal Judge Myron Thompson issued an order for the relocation of the 10 Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme Court Building Rotunda under the premise that its presence in that location violated the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The monument has been relocated to a "less conspicuous" area of the building. This court order is absurd.

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:


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."

"Congress" is defined in Article I, Section I of the Constitution as consisting of "a Senate and House of Representatives." Notice that the word is "Congress," not "States", "Governors", "President", "Government", or "Judges", which have no authority under our U.S. Constitution to make law.


Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of | a Senate and House of Representatives.

The 1st Amendment is not applicable to the states or to the people. No state, county, or local government official or any private citizen could ever violate the Establishment or the Prohibition clauses of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, because they do not extend outside of the federal United States Congress. The very first word of the 1st Amendment tells you who is restricted, and the rest of it tells you what they are restricted from doing. Nowhere does it mention any restrictions against the states (including any official thereof at any level of government within the state, i.e. state, county, and local) or the people.

Some have tried to claim that no institution funded with tax dollars can display religious symbols on it's grounds because it is tantamount to the government endorsing the religion to which the symbol(s) is affiliated. You will not find any language whatsoever to this effect in the 1st Amendment (or anywhere else in the Constitution for that matter), therefore there is no Constitutional basis upon which this claim can be supported.

The federal government cannot legally apply the 1st Amendment to the states or to the people. Any action short of the federal United States Congress passing a bill establishing a national religion cannot be deemed unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It takes a law passed by Congress to even qualify as unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. Here are some examples of things that do not meet the criteria for being unconstitutional when the words of the 1st Amendment are read as they exist in the language:

· Placement of a 10 Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme Court Rotunda.
· Placement of a 10 Commandments monument in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda.
· Placement of the 10 Commandments on the wall of a public school.
· Placement of a Jesus manger scene on City Hall property.
· A Bible reading club meeting on public school property.

None of the above actions involve the federal U.S. Congress passing a law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, therefore, they cannot be unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, there is more Constitutional law to indicate that by requesting the monument in the Alabama Supreme Court Rotunda be removed, the federal government is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Take a look at the 10th Amendment below;


Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

We know that the United States (the federal government) was not delegated the power to establish religion or to prohibit the free exercise thereof because the 1st Amendment tells us so. We also know that the states are not prohibited from establishing religion or from prohibiting the free exercise thereof by the U.S. Constitution, because there is lack of language in it specifying these prohibitions, therefore, these matters with regards to the states are reserved to the states or to the people.

The State of Alabama has its own prohibition against the establishment of religion and the prohibition of the free exercise thereof in the Alabama State Constitution, Article I, Section 3;

http://alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACASLogin.asp From here click the link for Section 3 Religious freedom, or
http://alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/codeofalabama/constitution/1901/CA-245534.htm Section 3.

Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles."

It is the responsibility of each individual state to formulate its own language with respect to religious freedom. It is none of the federal governments business what each state decides to formulate in its religious freedom language. Chief Justice Roy Moore is not in violation of Alabama Article I Section 3, nor is he being accused of violating any portion thereof by any Alabama state authority or federal authority. He is being accused of violating Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution. Just as it takes the passage of a law to violate the 1st Amendment Establishment and Prohibition clauses to the U.S. Constitution, a law must also be passed to violate Alabama Article I Section 3, religious freedom. Judge Moore did not pass any law, therefore he cannot be in violation of either the U.S. or the Alabama Constitutions.

Some have tried to claim that all federal, state, and local governments, and all government entities and institutions that are funded by government tax dollars are subject to the U.S. Constitution under the Supremacy clause (see the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Article VI).


"Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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 every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Some would have you believe that in the 1st Amendment, the word "Congress" can be substituted with any of the government officers or officials mentioned in Article VI, namely, Senators, Representatives, members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states. However, that is not what the 1st Amendment says, neither expressly or implied. The 1st Amendment only mentions "Congress" (the federal U.S. House of Representatives and the federal U.S. Senate), and the only group in Article VI which can be in violation of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution are the Senators and Representatives of the U.S. Congress, not any state officer or official, or the people of the several states.

Some have tried to claim that there is case law precedent to support the federal government issuing orders to the states with regards to violations of the 1st Amendment Establishment and Prohibition clauses. Take a look at the 10th Amendment again;


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

No power has been granted to the United States by the U.S. Constitution to regulate religious freedom in the states, nor has the U.S. Constitution prohibited the states from making its own law. If this were not true, the federal government could sue Alabama on the grounds that Alabama Article I, Section 3 is prohibited to Alabama under the U.S. Constitution. That has not been done! Therefore any case law in which the federal government has regulated the states with regards to religious freedom is illegal and unconstitutional in and of itself, and should be disregarded.

Lastly, some have tried to claim that whatever a judge says is correct and should be recognized as law. This is not necessarily so! You have as much right to read a court decision and decide whether or not it is within the bounds of the law as you see it as any Supreme Court judge. The only difference between you and them is you do not hold the office they hold, therefore your opinion is irrelevant in court. If people who have been to law school and achieved Supreme Court status can disagree 5 to 4, what's to stop you from agreeing with the 4 if you see it as they see it?

From: John Shanahan
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Date: Saturday, August 23, 2003 1:01 PM Central Time

Dear Mr. Keyes,

I just heard your interview on Judicial Watch over KPLS (radio 830 kilocycles AM).

I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciated your eloquent remarks in legal defense of Judge Roy Moore of Montgomery, Alabama. It was especially timely because the host of the show, Tom Fenton (spelling?), had just given his unchallenged opinion that ultimately, we must all obey the law as dictated by a federal judge.

I believe that you are a credit not only to your race but to all Americans in general; I wish that there were more people like you of all races who had the courage of well-thought-out convictions like you that would speak their minds.

Please keep up the good work.

John F. Shanahan
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

From: Deanna Burlingame
Location: Alpine, CA
Date: Friday, August 22, 2003 5:30 AM Central Time

Congratulations on your brilliant debate on Hannity & Colmes presenting the issues with Judge Roy Moore and the state and federal constitutions.

Thank God for your intelligence and talent in taking a stand on this most critical issue!

We applaud you.

Deanna Burlingame and Richard Bray
Alpine, Ca.

From: David R. Elkins
Date: Friday, August 22, 2003 5:02 PM Central Time

Dear Mr. Keyes,

Thank you for helping head up the fight to protect our country from the atheistic left!!!! I am so glad you're using your AWESOME linguistic and logical skills to help defend Judge Roy Moore and our freedom!!!!

David R. Elkins

From: Jim Peel
Date: Friday, August 22, 2003 1:18 AM Central Time

It is time for a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the First Amendment. I propose the following:

Amendment XXVIII: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a government sponsored or government operated religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof by any individual, group, or entity -- private or public; 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.


Jim Peel

From: Robert Young
Date: Friday, August 22, 2003 10:32 AM Central Time

Please convey our appreciation to Alan Keyes for his comments on Fox News last evening. We, as Christians have allowed the ungodly ACLU and judiciary to take away the foundation of our country far too long. It is past time to turn this around and with God's help, we are able. I would like to call your attention to a couple of state supreme court decisions - State of Maryland, 1799 - Runkel v. Winemiller - The decision states that "The Christian religion is the established religion by our form of government and all demoninations are placed on an equal footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty."...."Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion;....". One other state is the state of Pennsylvania (1826 - Updegraph v. Commonwealth) where the decision says "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania;...The laws and institutions...are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity." QUESTION: When was the constitution changed? The U.S.Supreme Court has taken away States rights time and time again. The other U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1892 was Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States which says: "This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hyour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.. these are not individual sayings, declarations or private persons; they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people...these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." Again, my question is: when was the constitution changed. The term separation of church and state is NOT a part of the Supreme Law of the land. We are losing by default. Thank you again and our prayers are with you Alen Keyes. signed by Betty Young:

From: Ants Nomm
Location: Cottonwood AZ
Date: Friday, August 22, 2003 9:50 AM Central Time

Dear Doctor Keyes,

Last night I saw you on Hannity & Colmes. You are the perfect spokesman for this cause and anything connected with the restoration of constitutional government under the authority of God, as the founding fathers intended. I cannot think of anyone more articulate or knowledgeable to deal with this issue. And what an issue it is. On it rests the entire future of this nation as a constitutional republic of free citizens.

The tyrannical oppression by monarchial judges must stop, and only the people of this nation can do that. May God grant you the means to lead this fight along with Judge Moore and may we all prevail, through the grace of God!

Thank you,

Ants Nomm
Cottonwood AZ

From: Charles Hill
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:51 PM Central Time

Dr. Keyes,

We at www.nitewatch.us just could not get over how great you was tonight 08-21-03 on Hannity & Colmes you defended the U.S. Constitution the way it should be done in all courts by all judges. We have signed your petition and have added your link to our site. We now will be watching and listening to what you have to say and wish we would have been doing so sooner.

Charles Hill
Nitewatch Communications inc.

From: Brent Johnson
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:37 PM Central Time

Hello Mr. Keyes,

The two Jefferson writings below, especially the last one or two sentences of each writing, actually refer to the 10th Amendment, unbelievable but true. After all these years we're just now finding out that Jefferson's "separation of church and state" writing evidently refers only to the federal government and not to the states.

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378

The above references are at U of Virginia web page:


I think Judge Moore would have had no problems with his 10 Commandments display in Jefferson's days. Indeed, Jefferson shows by the Constitution that Judge Moore should be having no problems with his display today.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, the clear, careful wording of the 1st Amendment means that US Citizens who are not Congressmen CANNOT possibly violate the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment obviously restricts only Congress from writing certain laws. But Congress can discuss religion 24/7 if it wanted to, for example; the 1st Amendment obviously does not say that Congress cannot discuss religion or any other issue for that matter. The 1st Amendment simply says that Congress cannot write laws pertaining to certain issues, plain and simple, religious laws being just one example.

The bottom line is the 1st Amendment simply doesn't address things like Judge Moore's 10 Commandments sculpture regardless of what constitutional "experts" including most people who wear the judicial robes (I now hesitate to call them Constitution defending judges) might think. Jefferson clearly wrote that the Constitution gives the states but not the federal government the power to address religious issues so let's tell all those flunky judges who evidently can't even read the Constitution to leave Judge Moore and his 10 Commandments alone!

Finally, I am obviously a bit angry, also sad that our system has evidently gone off on an unconstitutional tangent. However, don't forget that we are all US Citizens, we are "the People," and should all treat each other with respect concerning this issue and any other issue.

Thank you for listening.

From: Dukeakapp
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:57 PM Central Time

Alan, your stand on this issue is exactly correct. There can be no hesitation, no second guessing, no finger in the wind, etc. It's time for us to reassert the power of the Constitution and leaders who adhered to it. If one thing is certain it is that the judicial system is out of sync. We have to know why and correct this problem if our republic is to continue. If there are more people who want us to fail, I pray they are not in Congress. But, I must express I fear the worst is to come.

I shall be with you in spirit,

God Bless.

From: Bob Clark
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:28 PM Central Time

Dear Mr Keyes,

Thank You.

So much to say . . . so much to write.

Won't try do deal will them all this time.

Where did our country go? We started with Christians; and a republic. The result was the Constitution of the United States. We seem to have lost the Christians. The majority of 'citizens" believe we are a democracy. The only thing left is the Constitution.

Even the constitution is in danger because those of a democracy believe that everything should line up with their opinion. Democracy is nothing more than the inagural banner of anarchy.

The Bible is clear and easily understood. Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers; We were not given interpreters. Just as with the Constitution; our untaouchable, unimpeachable Federal Judges forget that they are not lawgivers nor interpreters but judges and protectors, maybe teachers. I am frustrated by the ignored clarity of "Congress shall make no law." Apparently, since Congress can't make any law, the Supreme Court gets the honor.

A very cursory study of the writing of the Constitution reveals that they worried over the language that would best portray the spirit of each article. Up until "separation of church and state," the only avenues open to the application of law were either letter or spirit. Somehow we have empowered our judges to ignore the basics of law AND the Constitution. They now have the power to invent reasons and make up law!

Too many people embrace this anarchy. "If the courts have the right to follow whim then so do I . . ." We have become a notion of "serve me" rather than a nation of "allow me" or "don't hinder me." How many times do I see individual rights interpreted as "my right not to have to put up with the other guy."

We might as well have kept the king. We seem to be hip deep in socialism. Most people want the government to protect them and take care of them. I hear comments over and over again that in esence say, "there should be a law to protect me from everythhing I find offensive."

Is the Constitution perfect? No, but it is an attempt to make government "more perfect." I see too much acceptance of the promise for two chickens in every pot instead of the desire for an environment where each person can measure success according to their own hearts and abilties. I DO NOT WANT a government that takes as its own my every concern and need. I WANT a government that leaves me alone.

The founders stated over and over again the need for christianity and christians as citizens and in government. Without the heavenward minds of christians acknowledging the only true authority from whom comes all authority we are left with factious debates over the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Thanks for fighting. Thanks for being simple straight and clear; even though too many people want to hear something else.

Like I said. I could go on and on. There are to many issues, too many problems; only one answer.

Hope you found some support and encouragement in this note.


From: Pam Dixon
Location: Dahlonega, GA
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:18 PM Central Time

I am writing you in reference to the terrible injustice happening to Judge Moore. I realize he is in Alabama but this is going to have a ripple effect on our United States of America. Please do whatever you can to speak out against taking away our religious freedoms. That's what our country was founded on. First it was one godless woman that took prayer from our children. Look what's happened to our children and our families. Morality is going away. The ACLU jumps on board standing up for rights. What about our rights as Christians? We have rights, too. If we lose this, it's only the beginning. Then "in God we trust" will be banned. What about the man that couldn't say "God bless" to a grieving family? What about his rights? It's not something "somewhere else". It's here - now. Please help.


Pam Dixon
Dahlonega, GA

From: Albert R Tomasko
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:54 PM Central Time

I was watching Fox News when I heard you talking about the 'Ten Commandments' issue in Alabama.

Thank you, Mr. Keyes, for being a witness and for being a credible voice for Americans who believe that this great nation was founded in the belief of God. Religiously and secularly speaking, history shows what has happened to nations who have turned their backs on Him. I pray that our nation does not follow the mistakes of the past but instead learns from them.

Thanks again and, I pray, God Bless America.

Albert R Tomasko

From: Guyrazer
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:29 PM Central Time


It is great to see Alan Keyes face again, But more importantly, to hear his voice and listen to his perspective, for it is the same as many millions of Americans!!!

I listened to two people tonight that would make a great running pair for the presidency of the United States...Mr Keyes and Ms Sandy Rios of the Concerned Women for America!!!!

Give us a ticket we could be proud to vote for! Your stance is strong because the planks you walk on are supported by the proper interpretation of the Constution.


And your cause is America....Thank you for being bold enough to expose your humble hearts in such a patriotic manor!

I will hang my hat on you in as diligent a way as I have fought for this country for 20 years!!!


From: Carl Perkins
Location: Grand Prairie, TX
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:27 PM Central Time

Yes, Yes, Yes! I agree with every pithy statement you made tonight about the 10 Commandments, the sorry Judges have no place dictating to us what to believe; we do NOT have to abdicate our rights to think; yes, yes, yes - you said it all.

Listen, there are many, many, many more people out there that think exactly like you. I am a white 51 year old software developer, conservative, yes yes yes - you are speaking for the majority of people in this country.

Forgive my typing and grammar; I am just so excited having heard what you said and "Hannity and Colmes". You are speaking what is in the mind of milllions, and the majority of, Americans. Additionally, our Congressmen are, via the H1-B and L1 visa, and overseas outsourcing, reducing America to a 3rd world country.

Our congressmen and judges are destroying this country.

Keep on verbalizing on the media as often as you can - many millions of people in this country agree with you!

You spoke elegantly, precisely, accurately, tonight. Give it to those blasted liberal journalists.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Carl Perkins
Grand Prairie, TX

From: David Paul Goldsmith
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 8:27 PM Central Time

While I doubt that Alan Keyes will ever see this e-mail, I wanted briefly to express my thoughts. While it's clearly my loss, I unfortunately had never seen you before tonight (August 21st) on Hannity & Colmes. Candidly I was impressed . . . okay, profoundly so! I'm a highly educated (22+ years schooling, multiple degrees) WASP and I'd vote for you in a microsecond.

Thanks, and best regards,

David Paul Goldsmith

From: Michael D. Suo
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 5:49 PM Central Time

Dear Dr. Keyes, I listened to you today on Sean Hannity. Thank you for standing up for allowing the 10 Commandments statue to stay on public grounds in Alabama. Your courage is matched only by your intellegence. I voted for you in the primaries each time you have run for President. I hope you continue to run for public office. My wish is that you become Governor of a state(I would love to have you in New Jersey). Then win the Presidency. You sir are a rare individual. God has given you very wonderful gifts. You possess tremendous wisdom and intellegence coupled with morality,integrity and consistancy.You are a natural born leader. You have the potential for greatness in the tradition of Ronald Reagan. I hope some day my wish comes true. God Bless you sir. Michael D.Suo

From: Ben Jones
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:58 PM Central Time

Thank you for standing up for the Ten Commandment monument in Alabama. The USA needs more men and women like you who are willing to take a stance for what's right.

From: Gloria Vitolo
Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:05 AM Central Time

I'm a single Christian mother in New York City. I wish that I could be there, but it's not possible, however, I will be joining you all in prayer and fasting for these 24 hours. God bless everyone who's involved in this. We can be confident that the Lord will be greatly glorified through all of this.

God Bless you all,

Gloria Vitolo

From: Patricia TobinKennedy
Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 5:48 AM Central Time

Only wish i could be there. The prayers will be there even if I am not.

Patricia TobinKennedy


From: Kingsley Pearce
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:10 AM Central Time

I can't be there with you in person to be with you for this vigil but I will be there in spirit as I am sure so many others will be from all around the world.

Kingsley Pearce
Melbourne, Australia

From: Paul Peldyak
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8:29 PM Central Time

God Bless you for your support of Justice Roy Moore.

You are one of the best thinkers and speakers I have ever heard. Your presentation on Sean Hannity's recent program was terrific.

I hope one day you will be President of our country.

Paul Peldyak

From: Vic Nickson
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 1:55 AM Central Time

Dear Mr. Keyes:

That speech in Alabama was the real Keyes. Classic. Went down in Alabama, said what he had to say, had them standing in the aisles, but still did not let them off the hook for slavery.

Took courage and bravery.

Three cheers for Keyes.


Vic Nickson

From: Mel Miller
Date: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:45 PM Central Time

To Whom It May Concern:

The possibility of removing the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Court Building or any other building where they are imprinted or displayed is a travesty and the "last straw."

The Ten Commandments are the basis of most of our laws of "Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you."

Please do NOT tamper with the existing law/regulation on the Ten Commandments.

Thank you,

Melvin & Kathryn Miller

From: Edward L Miller
Date: Friday, August 15, 2003 7:04 AM Central Time

Thank God for people like Alan Keyes who will stand up for what is right. If the ten commandments is wrong to be displayed then the morals of our country are completely lost. Thank you for your interest. If no one takes a stand about this issue then we might as well turn the country over to the devil.

Add your comments

City, state (optional): 

Print this document

Home Site  -  Keyes Media Central  -  Keyes Archives  -  Strategic Plan  -  Grassroots Handbook  -  Forum