Wood County resident Charles Scott filed the lawsuit, claiming that displaying the national motto, "In God We Trust", and offering an invocation before meetings violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  But Jeff Mateer of Liberty Institute, who represented Wood County in federal court, asserts that Scott's argument was flawed.

"The motivation behind this lawsuit was questionable at best," he comments.  "The Supreme Court has made clear on more than one occasion that legislatures, counties, cities, municipalities can open their meetings in prayer."

"Likewise, the Supreme Court has made clear, and other courts have made clear that there is nothing wrong with our national motto, 'In God We Trust.'"

The plaintiff submitted extensive documentation, trying to persuade the court that his constitutional rights had been violated by the commissioner's alleged endorsement of religion.

"Fortunately the judge was not persuaded at all by his arguments and position, and he was more persuaded, I think, by the Supreme Court and the actual language of the First Amendment", Mateer reports.

The judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling in favor of the county.


Charlie Butts

I love the way the Moore County Board of Commissioners always begin their meetings with a prayer and Pledge of Allegiance.  I am happy that the Southern Pines Town Council has decided to begin their meetings with the Pledge.  However, I would be happier to see the Town Council begin their meetings also with a prayer offered by someone in the audience.


Bill Cochrane

How do you know what you know is true and how do you know it?  This is the first question a person should be asked in a debate where ultimate justification is needed to demonstrate the truth of something.  Consider the 2-1 ruling that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York put out that struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act arguing that it’s unconstitutional.

Judge Dennis Jacobs ruled that the section of the law that defined the word “spouse” when referring to a man or woman’s partner cannot be limited only to a member of the opposite sex, and should include same-sex couples as well.  He said that the “classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest” and thus violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution,

My first question to the two judges would be, “What is the basis of your definition of marriage since the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the subject or establish the source of making moral decisions?”  If one of the judges responded that the Preamble to the Constitution states that the Constitution was drafted to “establish justice,” I would ask, “How do you know if a law is just?”

I would go deeper and ask, “What is the basis of your claim, and the claim of those who set up the guidelines for the office of a judge, to judge anything as being right or wrong?”

An appeal to the majority is dangerous since majorities change and can be just as tyrannical and unjust as the opinion of two judges.  An appeal to any human institution or philosophy is still left with the opening question:  “How do you know what you know is true and how do you know it?”

British atheist Richard Dawkins is going to explore the question, “If there is no God watching us, why be good?”  The three-part series, which is titled “Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life”, will be a study of “what happens if we leave religion behind.”  Dawkins believes that science is the key to determining right from wrong.  Dawkins “examines the argument that ‘religion’s absolutist moral codes fuel lies and guilt'.”  If there is no god, there are no lies or guilt.  In Dawkins’ atheist moral world, will it be OK to lie?  If not, why not?  Based on what?

There were never any categories of right and wrong in the primordial soup that evolutionists claim made us what we are today. Dawkins himself stated as much:

“In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice.  The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good.  Nothing but blind pitiless indifference.  DNA neither knows nor cares.DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”

When the first sign of life emerged and ate the second sign of life that emerged, did the first sign of life do anything wrong in eating its neighbor?  If it wasn’t wrong then, then why is it wrong to eat your neighbor today?

Evolved matter does not have a moral code stamped on it, and even if it did, there is nothing above evolved matter that can judge that anything ought to be done or ought not to be done.

The majority of today’s judges are most likely evolutionists.  If they are anything else, they wouldn’t be permitted to sit on the bench.  They would be accused of mixing religion with law, a clear violation of the First Amendment, according to previous court decisions.

So once again, what is the basis of a fundamental judgment that defines what marriage is or even if there is a relationship called marriage?  The judges don’t really know if they reject the premise that God is the One who defines what’s right and wrong, moral and immoral, just and unjust.  There is no other source, otherwise what 2 judges out 3 say is true and good today, 2 out of 3 judges tomorrow could say just the opposite.

Today’s courts and the judges that sit on them (for the most part) are without a moral foundation to rule on anything.



Gary DeMar

I thought Mr. DeMar raised excellent points and arguments in his piece above.  This is precisely why the courts have been so very wrong about the entire "Separation of Church and State" fallacy.  A study of our nation's founding documents, the extensive personal writings of our Founders, the acts and legislation of our early Congresses during the first 100 years of the Republic will irrefutably prove that the one and only basis for our system of government and our system of justice was God and the Bible.

It was only after the courts were packed with activist Progressive judges that God began to be removed from our government and public life.  And that is the root of our decline.  It is the root of all that is wrong in this nation today.

But, as Mr. DeMar says, "the majority of today's judges" are of this ilk.  I know of three exceptions who happen to be on our Moore County ballots this year.  NC Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby, NC District Court Judge Rob Wilkins, and NC District Court Judge Don "Skipper" Creed are all deeply moral and religious men who can be counted on to know right from wrong and to base their rulings on strict legal principles.  They will not reinterpret the laws.  They will not render rulings based on ideology, agenda, favoritism, or favors.


Bill Cochrane

Right behind the presidential election, the contest for NC Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby is the second most important race on your ballot.  Justice Newby's opponent is the grandson of a famous Democrat, but this grandson is much more far-left liberal than his grandfather.

If you want a conservative Supreme Court which will not be an activist court that legislates from the bench....  If you value Christian and conservative social principles, such as the recent Marriage Amendment, which will almost undoubtedly be challenged in court....  If you like the reforms which the first non-Democrat State Legislature in 140 years achieved over the past two years....  If you value a proven incorruptible jurist who has demonstrated impartiality and respect for Constitutional Law, then you should vote for Paul Newby.

It is not just on research that I offer this endorsement.  It is not merely hearing him speak on multiple occasions.  It is not simply because I have met his fine family.  It is all of this plus the conversations and interactions I have enjoyed which have enabled me to measure this man's character and beliefs.  Justice Newby is the principled jurist we need on the North Carolina Supreme Court.


Bill Cochrane

Greetings to all Americans!

It is early Sunday morning on July 1st, and I am reflecting on the astonishing events of the last week.  For me, the events center on a simple theme of individual freedom and sovereignty.

On a beautiful Saturday morning, just yesterday, I gathered with almost 500 Americans, 300 of whom were about to participate in the First Annual US Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn Memorial Frogman Swim.  Aaron gave his life in service to this country as one of the Navy SEALs killed in the Chinook helicopter shot down in Afghanistan last year.  I have come to know his father, Billy, and met the entire family.  One thing you can certainly ascertain is that Aaron grew up in a loving Christian family who understood devotion to Duty, Honor, God, and Country.

Looking at the splendor of the Atlantic Ocean, I reflected upon the sacrifices made over all these years by individuals such as Aaron for the individual freedoms, liberty, and democracy which we enjoy here in America.  The wholehearted willingness to lay down one’s life for another is truly amazing and is an essential part of the American experience, our exceptionalism.

Aaron was one of the best this country offers, a US Navy SEAL.  He was part of a legacy which began not too far up the coast in Ft. Pierce, Florida, home of the Navy Frogman, Underwater Demolition Team.  However, Aaron is part of a legacy that spans all the way back to the first men who answered the call to arms -- those brave patriots at Lexington and Concord who fired the shot heard round the world.

It was those first “Minutemen” who stood ready to defend a new nation which embodied a fledgling idea of the sovereignty of the American individual... a sovereignty that emanates from our Creator, not from man or government.

And how those patriots would have shed tears upon hearing the decision coming from the Supreme Court of the United States of America this past week.  This decision has set a precedent by collectively subjugating the individual rights of Americans to the subjective whims of the Federal Government.  This decision has given the Federal Government unlimited taxing authority to unleash a new era of behavior modification by way of taxation.  This decision has taken us back to exactly the point and reason for America’s founding -- onerous taxation.

As we come upon the 236th anniversary of the document setting America apart from all other nations, the Declaration of Independence, consider the achievement of Thomas Jefferson all those years ago.  Thomas Jefferson would create the longest running Constitutional Republic the world has ever known.  He would set forth a concept that was foreign at the time, of rule by the consent of the governed, not by the monarch.  His idea that our unalienable rights did not come from a single ruler but were embedded in each of us from our Creator wholeheartedly altered the relationship between God, leaders, and the people.

Yet, in a single moment five Supreme Court justices decided that Jefferson’s words had no meaning.  These Justices decided that James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton had it all wrong.

Quite contrary to the serenity of the morning where we memorialized Aaron Vaughn.

I respect our concept of separation of powers and the three branches of government, but I have utmost respect for the fundamental premise in America of individual sovereignty and liberty.

My parting challenge to all who read this missive before this 4th of July -- read the entire Declaration of Independence with your families.  Read and understand that which Thomas Jefferson set forth here some 236 years ago.

Read the grievances which he listed from an invasive and intrusive King George III and England and find the similarities to today.

Read and understand the impeccable birthright of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that has been given to all who earn the title of American.

Read, and notice, that Thomas Jefferson stated pursuit of happiness, not guarantee!

Read, and read again if necessary to ensure that our children and grandchildren recognize the blessing of having been born in the greatest nation the world has ever known… a nation for which men and women have given their lives… a nation for which many have left other places in order to become a citizen within the laws of the land.

Read, my fellow Americans, and when you feel that swelling of pride within your hearts and the tears well in your eyes, then you are ready to do as 56 men did 236 years ago -- pledge your life, your fortune, and your sacred honor to restoring the legacy of this Constitutional Republic, these great United States of America!

Thanks to the five United States Supreme Court Justices who have reminded us, true Americans, of what tyranny looks like.

Steadfast and Loyal,

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

James Madison

“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”


John Marshall

"The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..."


George Washington

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."

                                James Madison

"A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering… And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

Thomas Jefferson

My article on the Supreme Court ruling below upholds these principles.  We now have an unlimited government with unlimited power to tax.  Thank you Supreme Court.  Thank you Progressives.  Thanks to all who have compromised or abandoned principles.  Our Constitutional Republic appears doomed unless the people change themselves, awaken, and demand principled and virtuous candidates.


Bill Cochrane

Regular visitors here may have noted my "absence" for the past couple of days.  A number of us traveled to Raleigh early Thursday morning to be at the Legislature when the Supreme Court announced its decision on Obamacare.  We all had our individual expectations of what might be announced, and mine were certainly limited in optimism.

But none of us were prepared for what we heard.  We were completely "blown away".  I came home in a deep depression, and until this morning, I simply could not bring myself to do anything except listen to the media pundits and "experts", read the articles and blogs, and listen to talk radio.... searching, hoping, yearning for some "silver lining", some "ray of hope" that I had missed.

Oh, people have tried to find such.  And for a brief moment yesterday I was tempted to accept some of those propositions.  But their propositions are all false arguments.  They are based only on political rationalizations, on speculation of ulterior strategies on the part of Justice Roberts, and on specious interpretations of Supreme Court interpretations which are, themselves, un-Constitutional.  And now I'm angry.  More angry than I've ever been in my entire life.  All of our institutions have now failed.

In short all of the arguments made to defend the decision, to defend Justice Robert's statements in the ruling, to paint silver on the seamy twisted logic -- all of it is based on a lack of principle.  And unprincipled behavior is poison to governance and to our rights and liberties.  Let me explain.

1.  A Tax?  The Court was completely unprincipled here.  To begin with, this was the first question addressed by the Court during the hearings and oral arguments.  Because the Government was arguing that the individual mandate was not a tax, the Court even hired an independent outside attorney to make the oral argument that the penalty associated with the individual mandate was, indeed, a tax permitted to Congress under the Constitution.  Why would the Court do this?  Answer:  They had to do this.  You see there is a 19th century law which applies:  The Anti-Injunction Act.  That law states that a federal tax cannot be challenged in court until it has been collected.  Since this part of ObamaCare will not be implemented until 2014, no penalty/tax has been "collected".  Therefore, if the fines associated with the individual mandate were adjudicated as a tax, the Supreme Court would have no option, under rule of law, but to throw the case out until 2014.  But everyone wanted the case adjudicated now, not in 2014; therefore, the Court accepted the Government's argument that the fines were not a tax.

So, by ultimately ruling that the fines are a tax, Justice Roberts and the Court violated federal law themselves.  How can we place any faith on a Court which will willingly and knowingly violate law?  We cannot.  This behavior was completely unprincipled.


2.  What kind of tax?  Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants to Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises....".  However, neither the Framers nor the Nation nor the Courts ever held this power to be unlimited.  Indeed, it required an amendment to the Constitution -- the Sixteenth Amenment -- to authorize Congress to levy personal income taxes for the first time back in 1913.

By allowing the Government to now levy a tax on inactivity, the Court essentially removed all Constitutional limits on taxation.  The Government may now levy any kind of tax for any reason on anyone for any activity or inactivity.  This Court has expanded the powers of Congress to infinity, limited only by the political process.  This renders the Constitution essentially meaningless and useless as a constraint on government power.  Congress already thought they had loopholes for unlimited power through the Commerce Clause and through the tortured and twisted "interpretations" of the "welfare clause" -- now they have yet another route to infinite unlimited power fully granted and blessed by the Supreme Court.  How can such a Court claim to be "protecting and preserving the Constitution of the United States"?  It cannot.


3.  Speaking of interpretations....  There is nothing in Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution which grants the Supreme Court any powers to "interpret" or "re-interpret" the Constitution.  Nothing.  This is a Progressive Lie which has been accepted by too many ignorant, unthinking people and by too many of the sitting justices on the Court.  The Constitution is not a "living" "liquid" document which can be "re-interpreted" to "fit" "new ideas and problems".  This Progressive technique is exactly why Obama scolded George Stephanopoulos for using a dictionary during that 2009 interview where Obama insisted this was "not a tax".  Progressives and socialists do not like dictionaries.  Dictionaries state the meaning of words.  Words must mean something; meanings are important.  But meanings get in the way of Progressives.  Progressives constantly come up with new meanings of their own for words in order to hide and conceal their real intent and purpose.  So, Obama hates the dictionary and scolds George for even bringing it up.

Well, the Supreme Court and Justice Roberts engaged in the same behavior in rendering this terrible ruling.  They not only "re-interpreted" the Constitutional language having to do with taxes, but they "re-interpreted" the language of the ObamaCare act as well.  The Court twisted the words of both documents as well as the legal arguments brought before them to (by their own admission) find a way to rule the act "constitutional".

This, again, is unprincipled behavior.  It is akin to the concept of "situational ethics".  If the words of the Constitution and of acts of Congress can mean anything when convenient to "re-interpret" them, then those words actually mean nothing at all.

4.  But Justice Roberts put a new limit on the Commerce Clause....  Really?  Did he?  Where is that limit?  Firstly, the Court did not reverse Wikard vs. Filburn.  So, the Court left standing the perversion that the government can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.  The Court did not roll back any of the regulatory powers that the federal government has imposed under the Commerce Clause within intra-state commerce.  All this Court basically said was that the Commerce Clause did not apply in this instance.  That did not change past precedents whatsoever, really.  To argue that it did is a vapid stretch and really nothing more than the kind of "hopeful thinking" to which so many succumbed back in 2008.

The complete and utter perversion of the Commerce Clause in Section 8 remains in effect along with the un-Constitutional concept of court "precedents" which have accomplished that perversion.  This again, is unprincipled behavior.  And to argue that Justice Roberts "sneaked one over" on the liberal justices to somehow limit the now-unlimited scope of the simple little Commerce Clause is completely a "red herring".  Besides, if he did attempt to "sneak one over" by joining with the liberals in upholding ObamaCare, simply to be able to write a majority opinion that somehow limited the perversion of the Commerce Clause, is such sneaky behavior worthy of a Supreme Court Justice?  I would say it is, again, unprincipled behavior.


5.  Justice Roberts cited former Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:  “As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.”  Must I say anything more about duplicitous "interpretations"?  Justice Roberts went on to say:  "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Well, is it the "job" of the Supreme Court to re-write legislation?  To uphold anything that Congress passes?  To "protect the image" of the Court.  No, no, and no!  Those on the Court were granted lifetime tenure and shielded from political and legal liabilities in order to protect them.  They need no further protection -- they certainly do not need to render convoluted rulings to assuage the ire of some in the other branches.  And their job was designed to be a check and balance on the abuse of power by the other branches --- NOT to find a way to "interpret" the act or Constitution so as to rubber-stamp the will of an out of control Congress.

The job of the Supreme Court IS (was) to uphold their Oath -- to preserve, protect, and uphold the Constitution.  Instead, this Court has done irreparable damage once more to the Constitution.  The Framers intended the federal government to have the 18 enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8.  The Framers intended a limited government.  The Supreme Court has now granted the Congress and Administration at least three unlimited plenary ways to seize new powers.  This is the opposite of what the Constitution was designed and intended to do.  If the words of the Constitution can be so wildly "interpreted", then those words mean nothing.  If the government now has unlimited powers, then the Constitution means nothing.  The Progressive goal of making the Constitution irrelevant has finally been achieved with the help of this Court.

As Rush Limbaugh put it:  "There are now no limits anywhere on the size, scope, the growth of government."  As Colorado's Attorney General, John Suthers, says:  "Whatever limits remain on Congress's power will now be left to the political arena.  If our liberty is dependent on the voters, history has proven that little stands in the way of further encroachments on individual and state rights."   As Senator Lindsey Graham responded to an reporter's question:  "How do you hold the President accountable, Senator?" Graham responded:  "It's called an election."

The Court surrendered its role in checks and balances.  The Court abdicated its responsibility to protect the people from government overreach.  Now the self-appointed role of the Supreme Court is to find ways to uphold unconstitutional laws and regulations.  This is unprincipled behavior.


But it is not only the three branches of government who have abandoned principles and failed.  The media has failed in its role to be a check on the government and a purveyor of the truth and facts.  Our schools have abandoned principles of education in favor of bureaucracy, employee benefits, political ideology, and indoctrination.  Our culture is riddled with unprincipled and unscrupulous behaviors.

An unprincipled populace is ungovernable except by force.  This is why our institutions and our Constitution have failed.  Our populace is generally unprincipled, and their representatives and institutions merely reflect the people.  John Adams said:  "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  So, our unprincipled behavior creates a populace which can only be governed by force -- which is why we are quickly transforming into a totalitarian state -- a dictatorship.

We are close to dictatorship.  We must now resort to the purely political arena to preserve any vestige of our once-great Constitutional Republic.  We have one more chance this November to pull back from totalitarianism.  Considering the ignorance, apathy, greed, and misguided ideologies among the electorate, that is a very slender thread upon which our nation dangles.  If the electorate get it wrong this year, or if those we elect again betray us, we will become either serfs in a poverty-struck proletariat or revolutionaries in a desperate last-ditch bid for our freedom.



Bill Cochrane

Here's the latest update on the Sackett's case.  The Supreme Court has ruled that they can challenge the EPA in court, and the Supreme Court sent a message to Congress that there are serious overreach issues with the Clean Water Act which is being abused by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Hooray for common sense!  Unfortunately, the ruling still leaves these unfortunate victims facing more legal costs and stressful battles against an out of control regulatory agency.  However, it is + one for the good guys and - one for the bad guys.

Read about it:  Supreme Court Sides with Idaho Property Owners Over the EPA


Bill Cochrane