Additional Titles










"Men in Black" The Cult of The Judges





By Jon Christian Ryter
April 21, 2010

Before we cast "aspersions" on Jimmy Carter-appointed social progressive Western District of Wisconsin US District Court Chief Judge Barbara Crabb (who was a research assistant for the American Bar Association with absolutely no judicial experience when she was picked for the federal bench) for her own unconstitutional ruling on the National Day of Prayer, let's double check with the Constitution to see who is right. We don't have to go far, since its covered in the 1st Amendment...and no where else. (Social progressive federal judges have been tutored during seminars sponsored by the World Court on how to dilute the United States Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights, by coupling it with the UN Covenant on Human Rights—particularly the 1st Amendment with Articles 13 and 14.)

Since the right of free speech and our right to worship where, when, and as we please, are inherent under the Bill of Rights, the globalists who need to abolish our right to breathe free air in order to achieve globalization, have found if they could couple the Bill of Rights with the conditional rights of speech and religion found in the UN Covenant on Human Rights, they successfully thwarted religious liberty since 1947 in Everson v Board of Education and McCollum v Board of Education in 1948. (At the end of World War II, the globalists believed that World Government would be reality by 1950 after President Harry S. Truman introduced UN globalist Sir Julian Huxley's UNESCO programs to US schools in 1946.

Why would any US president attempt to surrender our sovereignty to a world government when our forefathers fought and died to escape the bondage of European masters? Because, in every nation in the world, the usurpers attempting to dilute national sovereignty and merge their nation with a pool of foreign nations who have distinctly different political ideologies and an inane hatred of Americans learned that national patriotism and pride are inexplicably linked to the religious roots of the nation. Too destroy patriotism it is first necessary to destroy God.

Okay...back to the 1st Amendment. Don't yawn while you're reading it, or you'll miss it. The part dealing with religions contains only 16 words. Frankly, it just isn't complicated enough to trip up a lawyer or a judge—or a Congressman or Senator who can trip over their own tongues when they try to talk and think at the same time. Here it is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Let's break it down in baby steps for the lawyers. What the first ten words are saying is that government can't establish a State religion. That means, they can't force children, whether Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindi, atheist or whatnot, to role play as Muslims, dressed up in Islamic costumes and quote scripture from the Koran (Qu'ram)—and pretend it's social studies when its hardcore religion.

While they are prohibiting Christian children from wearing T-shirts or Christian or Jewish jewelry, the public school systems allow Muslim students to wear Islamic garb, carry the Koran, and take prayer breaks during the day. Lawyers and judges have flipflopped the 1st Amendment. First, the prohibitions in the Constitution ban only the government, not the People, from establishing a religion. Religion is a "people's choice reward."

In fact, the Constitution admonishes the State from doing anything to interfere with the right of the people to practice their religion whenever and wherever they like. That's what "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means. If I want to stand up in the middle of a high school commencement and thank God for getting me through 12 years of social progressive brainwashing and still have a functional brain, I should be allowed to thank God for that. If I, as a public school teacher, want to wear a crucifix lapel pin, or bring my favorite Bible to read during lunch hour, the Constitution guarantees me that right because I am not the States. I am one of "we the people."

Yet, the social progressives who are weaving Article 13 of the Convenant on Human Rights into the first sentence of the 1st Amendment, are amending the Bill of Rights by legislating from the bench. It is a prerogative they do not possess.

Article 13 of the Covenant on Human Rights says: the "...freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations that are prescribed by law." By coupling the first 16 words of the 1st Amendment with the last eighteen words of the UN Covenant on Human Rights, government has converted an inhertent liberty as a conditional right. "Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the free manifestation of one's religion or believe which may be subject only to such limittions that are prescribed by law." Now, does that sound more like the 1st Amendment you've seen in practive for the last three decades? Religious liberty is now a conditional right based on the whims of the social progressives who are largely atheists, or who believe God is a superstition and that one god is as god as the next.


On April 15 social progressive Judge Crabb, in a ruling in which she said "...the government can no more eenact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can enourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic," declared the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. Crabb said the Natioanl Say of Prayer proclamation crossed the line, adding if there can be a "day of prayer," then there can also be a "day of blasphemy." In her summary, she siad " is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful affect on a community that government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual's decision whether and when to pray." Crabb added that her ruling was not a judgment on the value of prayer. She said the government's involvement in prayer may be constitutional if the conduct serves a "significant secular purposel," and did not amount to a call for "religious action." But, she added, "It goes beyond mere 'acknowledgment' of religion because its sole purpose is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function..."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed the lawsuit in 2008 largely because of Bush-43's ties with the Christian right, arguing that a public decree to pray violated the separation of church and state (which by the way, is not a constitutional precept, but a comment in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a pastor friend in answer to a question posed by the pastor.

In point of fact, what is unconstitutional was not designating a day of prayer, but Crabb's ruling since the 1st Amendment minus the coupling of Article 13 of UN Covenant on Human Rights by liberal judges to make an inherent right a conditional one, mandates that no lawmaker (which includes judges who legislate from the bench) has the authority to interfere, in any way, with the inherent right of the people to worship whomever they wish, whenever they wish, and wherever they wish to practice their religious faith. The right to free speech and to worship God as you please, are the most basic liberties in the Constitution. Those two "rights" are so sancrosanct that when they were penned, the Founding Fathers added an addendum to protect them by prohibiting any lawmaker from abridging either right by writing laws to restrict that liberties. No other right under the Bill of Rights carrying a warning to Congress not to attempt to alter them.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting 31 members of Congress who oppose Crabb's decision, said: "It's unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer in this country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it."

The National Day of Prayer was created by an act of Congress in 1952 when Congress enacted a law which required the President to proclaim one day each year as a "national day of prayer." In 1988, the law was amended designating the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer. it should be noted that the law was initially enacted by a Democratic Congress in 1952 (the Republicans tooks control of both Houses in Jan., 1953), and it was amended by a Democratically-control in 1988. So, the far left cannot claim that the National Day of Prayer was crammed down the throats of the American people by Christian fundamentalists.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, Inc., which promotes and supports Judeo-Christian principles and values said Crabb's remarks comparing the Day of Prayer to Ramadan and other religions including witchcraft, was far-fetched. "This nation," she said in her own press conference, "was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and values, and that's why it's appropriate for the tradition to continue. We were not founded according to Muslim law. We were not founded according to Muslim religion. Muslims were not the Founding Fathers of our nation."

� 2010 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

[Order, Jon C. Ryter's book, "Whatever Happened to America?" It's out of print, and supply is limited.]

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.

E-Mail: [email protected]










Yet, the social progressives who are weaving Article 13 of the Convenant on Human Rights into the first sentence of the 1st Amendment, are amending the Bill of Rights by legislating from the bench. It is a prerogative they do not possess.