Bill Barr's Speech on Religion at Notre Dame

Throughout history, there are speeches made by leaders or regular men, which stir our souls, make us laugh or weep, plant a seed, and alter human history. Lincoln’s “The Gettysburg Address”, Winston Churchill’s “The Finest Hour” and “We’ll Fight on the Beaches”, Kennedy’s Inauguration, Lou Gehrig’s “Farewell to Baseball”, we study these speeches as children in school, and we’re inspired by how great men can be when we all move together as a united force.

Sometimes, great speeches come at moments of unimaginable tragedy, when we all share the same grief, and one man, President Reagan, gathers our tears and puts them to words…. as it was with the Challenger Disaster, “slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God”.

When we start thinking about great speeches, the list grows. Our memories are long, our human frailty is infinite, but our natural desire to become better men knows no bounds. We think about our parents, teachers, mentors, and those who gave us courage when we needed it most as individuals, teammates, or as countrymen. We want to be honorable, to endure, and prevail. As ordinary men, it is uncanny, but we never lose faith. From William Faulkner’s Nobel Acceptance Speech:

I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.

William Faulkner

Other times, great speeches are intended to move us in a new direction, gather consensus to make men stand together, to achieve greatness. Donald Trump’s speech in Poland, or the “False Song of Globalism” were such speeches.

Bill Barr, Attorney General of the United States, recently gave such a speech on morality, ethics, and religion, at the University of Notre Dame. The speech has garnered much attention and is being passed from one person to another…. a key sign of a great speech. Bill Barr has touched our soul. Again, one man has gathered our tears, frustrations, and that nagging feeling in the pit of our gut. He put into words our common complaint, and again, we rise. We know we can be better men.

Barr starts by acknowledging the framers clear intent; “Religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government”, referring to the 1785 Pamphlet Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments by James Madison. Barr continues from there in an hour long speech. His words will echo in your head forevermore. The transcript is located below to make it easier to follow along.

I have here the transcript of the speech AG William Barr gave at Notre Dame re: Christianity and religious liberty in America today. Please do yourselves a favor and read how our AG feels about our faith and it’s role in America.

From FG&C who located the transcript (hat tip to him)



Today, I would like to share some thoughts with you about religious liberty in America. It’s an important priority in this Administration and for this Department of Justice.

We have set up a task force within the Department with different components that have equities in this area, including the Solicitor General’s Office, the Civil Division, the Office of Legal Counsel, and other offices. We have regular meetings. We keep an eye out for cases or events around the country where states are misapplying the Establishment Clause in a way that discriminates against people of faith, or cases where states adopt laws that impinge upon the free exercise of religion.

From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”

It has been over 230 years since that small group of colonial lawyers led a revolution and launched what they viewed as a great experiment, establishing a society fundamentally different than those that had gone before.

They crafted a magnificent charter of freedom – the United States Constitution – which provides for limited government, while leaving “the People” broadly at liberty to pursue our lives both as individuals and through free associations.

This quantum leap in liberty has been the mainspring of unprecedented human progress, not only for Americans, but for people around the world.

In the 20th century, our form of free society faced a severe test.

There had always been the question whether a democracy so solicitous of individual freedom could stand up against a regimented totalitarian state.

That question was answered with a resounding “yes” as the United States stood up against and defeated, first fascism, and then communism.

But in the 21st century, we face an entirely different kind of challenge.

The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be our supreme test as a free society.

They never thought the main danger to the republic came from external foes. The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.

By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition.

These practical statesmen understood that individuals, while having the potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil.

Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.

No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.

But, if you rely on the coercive power of government to impose restraints, this will inevitably lead to a government that is too controlling, and you will end up with no liberty, just tyranny.

On the other hand, unless you have some effective restraint, you end up with something equally dangerous – licentiousness – the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expense of the common good. This is just another form of tyranny – where the individual is enslaved by his appetites, and the possibility of any healthy community life crumbles.

Edmund Burke summed up this point in his typically colorful language:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put chains upon their appetites…. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment.

They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of the American people.

In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves…”

This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings.

Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people – a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.

As John Adams put it, “We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

As Father John Courtney Murray observed, the American tenet was not that:

“Free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and that its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.”

How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.

But they also include the guidance of natural law – a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law – the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon, and reflected in, all created things.

From the nature of things we can, through reason, experience, discern standards of right and wrong that exist independent of human will.

Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy. In fact, Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.

They reflect the rules that are best for man, not in the by and by, but in the here and now. They are like God’s instruction manual for the best running of man and human society.

By the same token, violations of these moral laws have bad, real-world consequences for man and society. We may not pay the price immediately, but over time the harm is real.

Religion helps promote moral discipline within society. Because man is fallen, we don’t automatically conform ourselves to moral rules even when we know they are good for us.

But religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what is good. It does not do this primarily by formal laws – that is, through coercion. It does this through moral education and by informing society’s informal rules – its customs and traditions which reflect the wisdom and experience of the ages.

In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline.

I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack.

On the one hand, we have seen the steady erosion of our traditional Judeo-Christian moral system and a comprehensive effort to drive it from the public square.

On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism.

By any honest assessment, the consequences of this moral upheaval have been grim.

Virtually every measure of social pathology continues to gain ground.

In 1965, the illegitimacy rate was eight percent. In 1992, when I was last Attorney General, it was 25 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. In many of our large urban areas, it is around 70 percent.

Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic.

As you all know, over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses. That is more casualities in a year than we experienced during the entire Vietnam War.

I will not dwell on all the bitter results of the new secular age. Suffice it to say that the campaign to destroy the traditional moral order has brought with it immense suffering, wreckage, and misery. And yet, the forces of secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater militancy.

Among these militant secularists are many so-called “progressives.” But where is the progress?

We are told we are living in a post-Christian era. But what has replaced the Judeo-Christian moral system? What is it that can fill the spiritual void in the hearts of the individual person? And what is a system of values that can sustain human social life?

The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion.

Scholarship suggests that religion has been integral to the development and thriving of Homo sapiens since we emerged roughly 50,000 years ago. It is just for the past few hundred years we have experimented in living without religion.

We hear much today about our humane values. But, in the final analysis, what undergirds these values? What commands our adherence to them?

What we call “values” today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.

Now, there have been times and places where the traditional moral order has been shaken.

In the past, societies – like the human body – seem to have a self-healing mechanism – a self-correcting mechanism that gets things back on course if things go too far.

The consequences of moral chaos become too pressing. The opinion of decent people rebels. They coalesce and rally against obvious excess. Periods of moral entrenchment follow periods of excess.

This is the idea of the pendulum. We have all thought that after a while the “pendulum will swing back.”

But today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on the pendulum swinging back.

First is the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; it is organized destruction. Secularists, and their allies among the “progressives,” have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.

These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular orthodoxy, but also drown out and silence opposing voices, and to attack viciously and hold up to ridicule any dissenters.

One of the ironies, as some have observed, is that the secular project has itself become a religion, pursued with religious fervor. It is taking on all the trappings of a religion, including inquisitions and excommunication.

Those who defy the creed risk a figurative burning at the stake – social, educational, and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage social media campaigns.

The pervasiveness and power of our high-tech popular culture fuels apostasy in another way. It provides an unprecedented degree of distraction.

Part of the human condition is that there are big questions that should stare us in the face. Are we created or are we purely material accidents? Does our life have any meaning or purpose? But, as Blaise Pascal observed, instead of grappling with these questions, humans can be easily distracted from thinking about the “final things.”

Indeed, we now live in the age of distraction where we can envelop ourselves in a world of digital stimulation and universal connectivity. And we have almost limitless ways of indulging all our physical appetites.

There is another modern phenomenon that suppresses society’s self-corrective mechanisms – that makes it harder for society to restore itself.

In the past, when societies are threatened by moral chaos, the overall social costs of licentiousness and irresponsible personal conduct becomes so high that society ultimately recoils and reevaluates the path that it is on.

But today – in the face of all the increasing pathologies – instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have the State in the role of alleviator of bad fconsequences. We call on the State to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility.

So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion.

The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.

The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the State to set itself up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their children.

The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with the wreckage. While we think we are solving problems, we are underwriting them.

We start with an untrammeled freedom and we end up as dependents of a coercive state on which we depend.

Interestingly, this idea of the State as the alleviator of bad consequences has given rise to a new moral system that goes hand-in-hand with the secularization of society. It can be called the system of “macro-morality.” It is in some ways an inversion of Christian morality.

Christianity teaches a micro-morality. We transform the world by focusing on our own personal morality and transformation.

The new secular religion teaches macro-morality. One’s morality is not gauged by their private conduct, but rather on their commitment to political causes and collective action to address social problems.

This system allows us to not worry so much about the strictures on our private lives, while we find salvation on the picket-line. We can signal our finely-tuned moral sensibilities by demonstrating for this cause or that.

Something happened recently that crystalized the difference between these moral systems. I was attending Mass at a parish I did not usually go to in Washington, D.C. At the end of Mass, the Chairman of the Social Justice Committee got up to give his report to the parish. He pointed to the growing homeless problem in D.C. and explained that more mobile soup kitchens were needed to feed them. This being a Catholic church, I expected him to call for volunteers to go out and provide this need. Instead, he recounted all the visits that the Committee had made to the D.C. government to lobby for higher taxes and more spending to fund mobile soup kitchen.

A third phenomenon which makes it difficult for the pendulum to swing back is the way law is being used as a battering ram to break down traditional moral values and to establish moral relativism as a new orthodoxy.

Law is being used as weapon in a couple of ways.

First, either through legislation but more frequently through judicial interpretation, secularists have been continually seeking to eliminate laws that reflect traditional moral norms.

At first, this involved rolling back laws that prohibited certain kinds of conduct. Thus, the watershed decision legalizing abortion. And since then, the legalization of euthanasia. The list goes on.

More recently, we have seen the law used aggressively to force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that are antithetical to their faith.

The problem is not that religion is being forced on others. The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.

This reminds me of how some Roman emperors could not leave their loyal Christian subjects in peace but would mandate that they violate their conscience by offering religious sacrifice to the emperor as a god.

Similarly, militant secularists today do not have a live and let live spirit – they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.

For example, the last Administration sought to force religious employers, including Catholic religious orders, to violate their sincerely held religious views by funding contraceptive and abortifacient coverage in their health plans. Similarly, California has sought to require pro-life pregnancy centers to provide notices of abortion rights.

This refusal to accommodate the free exercise of religion is relatively recent. Just 25 years ago, there was broad consensus in our society that our laws should accommodate religious belief.

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RFRA. The purpose of the statute was to promote maximum accommodation to religion when the government adopted broad policies that could impinge on religious practice.

At the time, RFRA was not controversial. It was introduced by Chuck Schumer with 170 cosponsors in the House, and was introduced by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch with 59 additional cosponsors in the Senate. It passed by voice vote in the House and by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate.

Recently, as the process of secularization has accelerated, RFRA has come under assault, and the idea of religious accommodation has fallen out of favor.

Because this Administration firmly supports accommodation of religion, the battleground has shifted to the states. Some state governments are now attempting to compel religious individuals and entities to subscribe to practices, or to espouse viewpoints, that are incompatible with their religion.

Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty.

For anyone who has a religious faith, by far the most important part of exercising that faith is the teaching of that religion to our children. The passing on of the faith. There is no greater gift we can give our children and no greater expression of love.

For the government to interfere in that process is a monstrous invasion of religious liberty.

Yet here is where the battle is being joined, and I see the secularists are attacking on three fronts.

The first front relates to the content of public school curriculum. Many states are adopting curriculum that is incompatible with traditional religious principles according to which parents are attempting to raise their children. They often do so without any opt out for religious families.

Thus, for example, New Jersey recently passed a law requiring public schools to adopt an LGBT curriculum that many feel is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Similar laws have been passed in California and Illinois. And the Orange County Board of Education in California issued an opinion that “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction.”

Indeed, in some cases, the schools may not even warn parents about lessons they plan to teach on controversial subjects relating to sexual behavior and relationships.

This puts parents who dissent from the secular orthodoxy to a difficult choice: Try to scrape together the money for private school or home schooling, or allow their children to be inculcated with messages that they fundamentally reject.

A second axis of attack in the realm of education are state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally-available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options. Montana, for example, created a program that provided tax credits to those who donated to a scholarship program that underprivileged students could use to attend private school. The point of the program was to provide greater parental and student choice in education and to provide better educations to needy youth.

But Montana expressly excluded religiously-affiliated private schools from the program. And when that exclusion was challenged in court by parents who wanted to use the scholarships to attend a nondenominational Christian school, the Montana Supreme Court required the state to eliminate the program rather than allow parents to use scholarships for religious schools.

It justified this action by pointing to a provision in Montana’s State Constitution commonly referred to as a “Blaine Amendment.” Blaine Amendments were passed at a time of rampant anti-Catholic animus in this country, and typically disqualify religious institutions from receiving any direct or indirect payments from a state’s funds.

The case is now in the Supreme Court, and we filed a brief explaining why Montana’s Blaine Amendment violates the First Amendment.

A third kind of assault on religious freedom in education have been recent efforts to use state laws to force religious schools to adhere to secular orthodoxy. For example, right here in Indiana, a teacher sued the Catholic Archbishop of Indianapolis for directing the Catholic schools within his diocese that they could not employ teachers in same-sex marriages because the example of those same-sex marriages would undermine the schools’ teaching on the Catholic view of marriage and complementarity between the sexes.

This lawsuit clearly infringes the First Amendment rights of the Archdiocese by interfering both with its expressive association and with its church autonomy. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in the state court making these points, and we hope that the state court will soon dismiss the case.

Taken together, these cases paint a disturbing picture. We see the State requiring local public schools to insert themselves into contentious social debates, without regard for the religious views of their students or parents. In effect, these states are requiring local communities to make their public schools inhospitable to families with traditional religious values; those families are implicitly told that they should conform or leave.

At the same time, pressure is placed on religious schools to abandon their religious convictions. Simply because of their religious character, they are starved of funds – students who would otherwise choose to attend them are told they may only receive scholarships if they turn their sights elsewhere.

Simultaneously, they are threatened in tort and, eventually, will undoubtedly be threatened with denial of accreditation if they adhere to their religious character. If these measures are successful, those with religious convictions will become still more marginalized.

I do not mean to suggest that there is no hope for moral renewal in our country.

But we cannot sit back and just hope the pendulum is going to swing back toward sanity.

As Catholics, we are committed to the Judeo-Christian values that have made this country great.

And we know that the first thing we have to do to promote renewal is to ensure that we are putting our principles into practice in our own personal private lives.

We understand that only by transforming ourselves can we transform the world beyond ourselves.

This is tough work. It is hard to resist the constant seductions of our contemporary society. This is where we need grace, prayer, and the help of our church.

Beyond this, we must place greater emphasis on the moral education of our children.

Education is not vocational training. It is leading our children to the recognition that there is truth and helping them develop the faculties to discern and love the truth and the discipline to live by it.

We cannot have a moral renaissance unless we succeed in passing to the next generation our faith and values in full vigor.

The times are hostile to this. Public agencies, including public schools, are becoming secularized and increasingly are actively promoting moral relativism.

If ever there was a need for a resurgence of Catholic education – and more generally religiously-affiliated schools – it is today.

I think we should do all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic education at all levels.

Finally, as lawyers, we should be particularly active in the struggle that is being waged against religion on the legal plane.

We must be vigilant to resist efforts by the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith.

I can assure you that, as long as I am Attorney General, the Department of Justice will be at the forefront of this effort, ready to fight for the most cherished of our liberties: the freedom to live according to our faith.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. And God bless you and Notre Dame.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


This speech was a history lesson, a state of the union address, a warning, and a declaration of war all rolled into one.


Also, in a sense, William Pelham Barr was speaking as a diplomat, laying out the values of the Kingdom of God and historical values enshrined in the US Constitution as defended by the Trump administration) to the rebellious CINOs, RINOs and Democrats that administer, teach and attend Notre Dame.
Keep in mind, Notre Dame is a bastion of leftist liberal Catholics in Name Only. During the Øbama years, Notre Dame permitted LBGTXYZ frolics and festivities during HOLY WEEK (!!!) and permitted the V-gina Monologues on campus too as I recall.


I watched it the other day and it’s an excellent speech.
Really exceptional.
It also gave me confidence that Mr. Barr is an honest and decent man.
I hope many of you have the time to watch it.


I saw it the other day too and came away with much more confidence in Barr afterwards. There are so few people in Washington you can feel that way towards and W. Barr is one of the most important men in America right now. Thanks for the posting Daughn, I’m showing this to the family today!


William Pelham Barr was born in New York City in 1950. His father, Donald Barr, taught English literature at Columbia University before becoming headmaster of the Dalton School in Manhattan and later the Hackley School in Tarrytown, New York, both members of the Ivy Preparatory School League. Barr’s mother, Mary Margaret (née Ahern), also taught at Columbia.[5] Barr’s father was born Jewish, and later converted to Catholicism. His mother is of Irish ancestry. Barr was raised Catholic.


Nailed it! Just perfect. Lovely opener and is far better than I could have done. Thank you!


There is a lot more going on here, I’m sure Barr is well aware of the explicit push to secularize America and neuter the rights of Christians during the Obama administration. I don’t have my sources with me but some of the published statements by Obama era religious councils were seriously hair-raising – many of them didn’t care enforcement powers but were shockingly candid statements about just where they thought Christian religious rights should go. They held no concept of right of conscience. They asserted repeatedly the notion that Christian beliefs and conscientious objections to (Neo-marxist) Obama policy were inherently insincere, hypocritical, and were nothing more than phony posturing. This was on every issue from opposition to abortion to same-sex “marriage” to the opposition to contraception/abortion/family planning mandates in insurance and beyond. The Obama administration via these councils had openly declared war on religion and Christianity in the U.S. – religion had to evolve, by force of government if necessary. So high was their contempt for Christian beliefs that they felt that every moral issue the church has stood for was merely political posturing (note the leftist projection!) and giving the churches a good shove to push them unwillingly down the so-called arc of history toward “justice” (aka, Neo-marxism) was not only necessary but the morally righteous thing to do. Christians and other religions weren’t simply wrong but immoral and evil, and it was well past the point of tolerating their wickedness: They needed to be forced to get with the times. After all, in their Critical Theory view of the world, Christians are the oppressors who have for many decades benefited from unfairly receiving special privileges from the government without having to give anything back in return while opposing the real cultural move toward social justice at every turn, crouching bigoted and racist language in the terms of religious doctrines and lobbying for over-wide carve-outs and exceptions to give space to and justify their hatred and backwardness. Indeed, this lead them directly to the conclusion that religious liberty should be circumscribed as narrowly as legally possible at each and every point, reverseing generations of broad religious liberty that has been practiced in the United States since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. It was nothing less than a neo-marxist wish-list of anti-Christian and anti-religious bigotry aimed at annihiliating the place of religion in the American conscience and body politic.
Bill Barr’s speech is a long overdue response to the open hostility from the Obama administration toward religion and toward Christianity in particular. He did not start this war: The Obama administration started the war and waged it relentlessly with zeal and gusto for eight years! Just now almost three years after the election, an Attorney General is out to declare that the political war on religion is over, and that the proper rights of THE PEOPLE (not just of believers, but of non-believers too!) will be defended, protected, and enforced. The radical secularist that rejects any compromise, tolerance, concept of the right of conscience, or even a libertarian “live and let live” attitude has been put on notice that their secularist supremacism (pushed in the name of Neo-marxism!) has no place in our national fabric: Their agitation will not be taken by rolling over as in the past – if they push forward they can expect they will have a fight.

Deplorable Patriot

I think there’s another angle. The progressives have been appropriating the institutions that Christianity gave to the world: education, healthcare, social work, arts, science. These are not supposed to be business propositions, and historically the Church developed and administered them. There’s been a pretty hostile government take over of the lot. Why? Control of the population.
Modern education was designed to warehouse kids, train them for the factory (slavery) and restrict freedom. It is the box, and we’re not allowed to think outside of it.
Healthcare – you can trust your doctor with ANYTHING. Sure. Back when healthcare and hospitals were really, truly charitable institutions everyone was taken care of at a fraction of the expense.
Social work has all but been taken over by the states when it really was a Church function from the beginning – and that’s where such charity and corporal works of mercy belong.
Science is the search for truth. There is nothing more Christian than that.
And the arts, that’s the subject for a treatise, not a quick response.
The reality is, Barr sees the take over of the institutions that bring order to society for what they are: an attempt to destroy it from within. And taking over what Christianity built before kicking out the Christians….
That’s a lesson learned from another government system masquerading as a religion, I’m afraid.


For sure. There’s a lot more than I could say about it – the neo-marxist infiltration and subversion of Christianity has become very obvious. Still, the blatant actions of the Obama administration and the underlying ideology of explicit anti-religious bigotry are underreported. That’s where seeing the wolves with their masks off really alerted me to the immanent threat they pose. As Barr said, “this is not decay; it is organized destruction.” No hyperbole.

Plain Jane

Yep. That all started with state run welfare and people congregating in cities. When people in small towns hit bad circumstances, they turned to the church communities for help. There they not only found help but also mentoring and the offers to join the church, and eyes to see that the needy were trying to lift themselves up.
Along with help and mentoring, they found people who withdrew the help if the needy didn’t try to also help themselves. Ohhh, unfair! That was the conundrum that government “solved” with welfare. Welfare came with the unseen strings.

Deplorable Patriot

You know, I don’t know that welfare in the cities is where it really started. I would imagine setting up the education system was where it started. And that was done, as I understand it, largely through state charters. Prior to the Civil War, there were community schools and such, but it was the religion based schooling that was really organized. There are competing stories out there on which came first, but all evidence says it was private/parochial and the Prussian sort of system was adopted to lessen the influence.
Cities get a bum rap from a lot of people for all sorts of things. Unfairly, IMO. Yes, the Democrats have not done the best job running them, but welfare didn’t start in the city governments.

Plain Jane

Thanks DP. I was always under the impression that welfare and it’s strings was instituted by the fed and took hold in the cities because of the concentration of needy in the cities. Hmm, rethinking.

Deplorable Patriot

That’s not to say the cities didn’t do stupid stuff to help accommodate the working poor. Here in STL, under one of the St. Louis U. High mayors (Jesuit HS founded in 1818), I think, they rezoned a bunch of housing that has been restored of late. BIG houses were split into multi-family dwellings and such. That was in the early 20th century. Later they tore down decent, but in need of work, housing and built housing projects, but that was long after the school systems were established.

Plain Jane

They did similar in Chicago to warehouse newly brought in dem voters.


This attitude against the right to conscientious objections is used by medical bullies as well. Can’t object to a vaccine made with aborted baby’s tissue.


“… generations of broad religious liberty that has been practiced in the United States since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.”
It’s good that you included the qualifier of the Bill of Rights. Because prior to the constitution in 1789-1791, we were basically 13 little theocracies. All of the religious qualifications of the colonies for public office had to be abolished or the United States would never solidify.
note: paragraphs are your friends. 🙂


Thanks pgroup 🙂 Yes I was very careful on “Bill of Rights”. Technically there is more to that story but it’s the foundation to what would happen later. As for paragraphs, sorry, I was typing on my phone 😛 Most of the time I try not to comment during the day…


Thank you FG&C, thank you Daughn.
A call to all Christians to stay engaged in the fight and to specifically engage in the arena of education.


Thanks, Daughn! Wonderful assessment by Barr—and as with others here, provides with hope that Barr will seek justice and accountability in the Spygate saga by the corrupt secular State.
Briefly, the dilemma that Barr astutely reveals has its nascent beginnings in 1933 with the “Humanist Manifesto 1”, signed by 34 liberal humanists of the United States. One of the individuals was the so-called father of modern education, John Dewey.
Some of the tenets include—a) the universe as self-existing and not created; b) man is a part of nature and that he has emerged [evolved] as the result of a continuous process; c) that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values [no God and no Word of God]; d) considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now [no such thing as an afterlife]; e) it follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural; f) that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society [capitalism] has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted; and, g) man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement.
In the follow-up manifest, “Humanist Manifesto 2” (1973), it declares—We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is “autonomous” and “situational,” needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.
Thus, they promoted “situation ethics,” or moral relativism. All is gray—no black and white, no moral absolutes—right or wrong is defined by the situation and environment.
Ungodly, corrupt and evil stuff, folks!!! Luciferian (Satanic) in all its construct and intent!


These two “manifesto’s” reveal secular humanism in all its glory, set up to be a secular “religion” in and of itself! In the final analysis, it pushes for a new world order, a one world order!
“The world cannot wait for a reconciliation of competing political or economic systems to solve its problems. …At the present juncture of history, commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal and practice, a citizen of a world community.”


Furthermore, look at some of the guiding tenets of the Rockefeller Foundation-supported National Education Association (NEA)—
A) Educate the youth for a global community.
B) Promote a stronger United Nations.
C) Promote the Declaration of Interdependence (anti-Nationalism).
D) Oppose legislation to benefit private schools.
E) The basics (reading, writing, mathematics, history, civics and geography) should not occupy more than 1/4 of the student’s time (the dumb-down initiative).
F) Support population control (abortion).
G) Promote and teach Secular Humanism.
H) Support increased federal aid and control of education.
I) Oppose local control of public schools.
J) Oppose parental supervision of textbooks.
K) Oppose taxation programs that remove the obligation for payment of taxes from homeowners who send their children to private schools (create no incentives to the betterment of private schools).
L) Oppose tuition tax credits for parents who pay for both a public and private education. (From “N.E.A., Education for a Global Community,” Freeman Digest.)
I would much rather send my daughter to the private Catholic school here in town, but my cost (not being Catholic) would be $4000-4500 per year. I own several properties, so I pay a bunch of property tax (which in part goes for public education). I would prefer that % of ad valorem tax go to the local Catholic school for my child to attend there, but the powerful NEA strongly opposes such a program! Obviously, the competition for students would be too great for the public system!
School choice—and the ability to have a large portion of my property taxes go towards tuition and support of the local private school for my child to attend! Just sayin’….


The two 21st century scientific advancements which broadly, even shatteringly, support a traditional Christian worldview are the delegitimization of Darwin — neither the fossil trail nor the biogenetic insights into animal DNA support the Theory of Human Evolution anymore — and contemporary physicists’ observation that, within the first nanosecond of Creation, matter and antimatter ought to have simultaneously destroyed each other and extinguished Creation.
So, today what is implicit in our highest understanding of the Universe’s very existence is this presupposition that “something” anterior to and outside of Creation must be sustaining us in this otherwise inexplicable balancing of mutually destructive forces which order our Being. The strictest of our human sciences now observe the veritable existence of a God as fully evident in human history as wind writing on the water.


Amen, Herbork!!!
And when have we observed or witnessed “immense complexity” (creation itself—the universe) issuing forth from “complete chaos” (the “Big Bang”)??? We haven’t, because that doesn’t happen! Out of chaos—complexity? God’s creation, the laws of the universe He put in place, do not operate thusly!


Reblogged this on RedLegLeader Blog and commented:
Please listen to this speech; as Daughn says, this speech will redound to history. What a great time to be alive …


Thank You Dauhgn .
Shared three times already
The video is awesome


Ot but funny af
North Korean laborers have started fighting over and stealing each other’s excrement in an attempt to meet an impossible quota collection in time to prepare fertilizer for next year’s farming season, a report revealed this week.
Kim Jong-un ordered that each household should meet a quota amounting to 100 kilograms (220 pounds) per able-bodied citizen.
That’s a lot of poop.


Hilarious R. Clinton @Hilarious
@NevadaJack OhmyGod!
I think I just solved an aspect of the homeless problem in San Francisco, LA & elsewhere.
Let’s fill tankers and send them to N. Korea


Replying to @COsweda @Unseen1_unseen @realDonaldTrump
what’s great is that in the last month the left traded Dave Chappelle to us for John Bolton and I’m sure a few more picks to be named.
The madness is off the charts


Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
Now we’re seeing tons of photos and videos of dead cartel gunmen.
It looks like they’re being hunted and killed.

Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
Almost nobody understands that we worked exclusively with the Syrian Arab Coalition within the SDF.
In other words, commandos of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Trump gave the Kurds a few armored vehicles, but all the fighting was done by Arab commandos.
The Kurds killed in action were second-line troops who held the ground taken by the Arab assault troops.


Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
The Mexican president.
I’ve looked at all the videos and still photos. Not one cop was injured, and several cartel gun trucks were destroyed.
Several vehicles with armored glass were taken out, and there were helicopter gunships.
The cartel LOST, but the president ordered his men to stand down


Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
This gun-truck was strafed from the air.
If you listen carefully, you can hear a deep drumming sound. That’s the cannon on the helicopter firing.
The louder noise is the rounds striking the vehicle.
zyńq on Twitter


Kim @Baline
@ThomasWic @prchrskd Well now you’ve really piqued my interest. What country/ military group do you think took on the cartels & escaped inmates? Who gave el presidente the order to give the stand down order to his police?


Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
@Baline @prchrskd
1 of 2
The cartels came in and had their asses handed to them.
They were in ridiculous cargo-cult armored vehicles that left the machine gunners totally vulnerable.
Considering how much firing was done, there should be damage everywhere. There isn’t.
That’s because the men firing were hitting their targets.
But the president is corrupt, so he ordered the Chapito released.


Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
@Baline @prchrskd
2 of 2
All I saw were Mexican National Guard, a unit created only five months ago.
They’re a national gendarmerie similar to the French GIGN national-police special forces.
The battle-damage assessment shows that the cartels lost badly.
The president didn’t expect that.
But it’s clear that the National Guard was NOT outgunned, and they took the fight to the cartel very professionally.


U.S. Department of Commerce Finds Dumping of Imports of Mattresses from China


Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
For @Baline
You said you’re trying to find the long game in regard to Mexico.
These two guys caused all the trouble we’re seeing today.
Vicente Fox and George W. Bush.
Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
Bush and Fox are adherents of the “safety valve” theory of illegal immigration from Mexico.
If we shut off illegal immigration, Mexico will collapse and become a failed state.
The drug cartels will take over, and we’ll have Somalia on our southern border.
Then we’ll have to invade and nation build.
The Pentagon actually advised Clinton and Bush that illegal immigration from Mexico had to be allowed for reasons of national security.
Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
Of course this is a total lie. The Mexicans used their own chronic failure as a threat.
“We’re bad now, but if you don’t do as we demand, we’ll get even worse!”
The problem is that illegal immigration from Mexico didn’t keep Mexico from becoming a failed state.
CORRUPTION made Mexico a failed state.
Thomas Wictor
Foreign companies won’t do business in Mexico because everyone has to be bribed to do his job.
The Mexican oil infrastructure is decaying because the Mexicans are too corrupt and incompetent to run it.
Now, we’ve been told that the war on drugs is a waste of money.
Well, the Mexican cartels are turning to human trafficking and stealing gasoline and oil.
Selling drugs is too risky.
What about legalization?
Oct 19, 2019, 16:20 · Web · 0 · 3
Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
Did the end of Prohibition get rid of the mafia?
Or did the mafia simply go into other lines of business?
What it comes down to is that the Mexicans have to fix their country. Allowing uncontrolled illegal immigration has ruined California.
My city is now a cesspool. Each house has ten families in it, and there are fifty cars parked on my little street.
Mexicans are scofflaws. They don’t believe in the rule of law. Their culture doesn’t change when they come here.
Thomas Wictor @ThomasWic
So the only solution is to cut off illegal immigration from Mexico and allow the Mexicans to decide whether or not they want to survive.
The stories we’re getting from Culiacan are bullshit. The newly formed National Guard did its job.
But the corrupt government let El Chapo’s son go, and the family said thank you.
There’s video of Naval Infantry soldiers shaking hands with cartel gunmen.


IMO. And this is just me. I think gcc or similar special forces infiltrated both the cartels and the corrupt police. They then engineered them all turning on each other. Same as they dis with isis

[…] and they are worried about the attacks on their Judeo-Christian beliefs and religious freedoms.  The Q Tree responded to the Notre Dame speech, saying, “Bill Barr’s speech is a long overdue […]

[…] are worried about the attacks on their Judeo-Christian beliefs and religious freedoms.  The Q Tree responded to the Notre Dame speech, saying, “Bill Barr’s speech is a long overdue […]

[…] and they are worried about the attacks on their Judeo-Christian beliefs and religious freedoms.  The Q Tree responded to the Notre Dame speech, saying, “Bill Barr’s speech is a long overdue […]


[…] and they are worried about the attacks on their Judeo-Christian beliefs and religious freedoms.  The Q Tree responded to the Notre Dame speech, saying, “Bill Barr’s speech is a long overdue […]