Conservative Hope for the Future and for America

Despite last night's disappointing election results, I'm already seeing hope among conservatives.

Conservatives have watched their beloved country embrace an inexperienced, naive, Marxist candidate who has a long list of anti-American associates. They have watched America elect a candidate who has openly sworn to gut our national defense, launch an all-out war on marriage and family, attack our economic system and deride the wisdom of our Founders.

There is much to lament after last night. Personally, I feel as if I just watched a beloved but intoxicated friend venture out in public and do something incredibly foolish and dangerous--something embarrassing and painful to watch (in this case, intoxicated on envy and self-centeredness).

But just as you don't turn your back on a friend who's made a mistake, conservatives will not turn our backs on our country, even in a moment of self-destructive insanity. We will be there to help keep them safe--even if our overtures are rejected--and will be there to help get her back on track.

Already as I look around the internet and the blogosphere, I see conservatives actually breathing a sigh of relief in some cases. There is relief that RINOs like Chris Shays are gone; we can now put forward a real conservative Republican next time around.

There is even a small measure of relief in John McCain's loss. While few of us would have chosen the dark future presented by Barack Obama, John McCain was recognized almost universally among conservatives as a very flawed candidate, one who left much to be desired as a Republican.

Some even thought months ago it would be better to see a flaming liberal Democrat elected than to see a Democrat-Lite RINO Republican like McCain further tarnish the Republican brand. Perhaps the saddest thing about the McCain loss--other than what it bodes for our beloved country--is that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin--a good conservative--had to go down with him.

Yes, there is hope. There is already talk of aggressive education campaigns to help the American people recognize why socialism is a destructive dead-end street, and to help the American people re-learn about their wonderful heritage of freedom, limited government, personal responsibility, initiative, and virtue.

There is talk of rebuilding the conservative movement now that many pretenders have been exposed and in some cases already ejected.

There is even talk of rebuilding the Republican Party--a once great party which sold its soul in pursuit of a tent so big it embraced everything and stood for nothing.

There are tough times ahead for conservatives. But it is in the tough times where we are tested that we truly learn what we are made of, and what is truly important. It is a chance to grow and a chance to shine.

It won't be long with a radical like Obama and a Democrat congress before the American people wake up and realize that the Utopian dream of Karl Marx sold to them by Obama in red-white-and-blue wrapping paper is a broken dream, an empty package, a whirlpool of envy that demands much and gives little in return.

I will be there, redoubling my efforts to do my part in dispelling the darkness, and I know many of my conservative friends will be there too. Side by side, we will see our nation return to its greatness and virtue.

The hope, fire and determination I'm already seeing is really not surprising at all.

It is in the best tradition of conservative dedication and loyalty to the Founding principles of Americanism.

"Old Man Eloquent"

My adopted hometown of Quincy, Illinois was named in 1825 for the new president of the United States John Quincy Adams. The city is located in Adams County and the square at the center of the town was originally called John Square, completing the name of the President. Quincy is best known by many as the site of the sixth Lincoln-Douglas debate; the history of her namesake is less well known.

John Quincy Adams was the son of a president, a senator, was himself elected President in 1824 and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1830. Of the latter, Adams wrote in his diary "My election as President of the United States was not half so gratifying to my inmost soul. No election or appointment conferred upon me ever gave me so much pleasure." Other offices that he held included Minister to Russia, Head of the American mission to negotiate peace with England, Minister to England, and Secretary of State. He was personally acquainted with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison.

So when elected to the House of Representatives on Dec. 5, 1831 at age 64 he was far from being an inexperienced freshman Congressman. It wasn’t long before he asserted himself on the subject for which he apparently sought office and for which devoted his energies until his death on February 23, 1848, opposition to slavery.

During his first years in office the slavery debate was reaching a fever pitch and in 1835 the Anti-Slavery Society, based in New York, began flooding the country, and especially the South, with anti-slavery literature and pamphlets. Pro-slavery forces successfully intercepted such shipments and destroyed them, which brought issues pertaining to the First Amendment to the fore, in addition to the already over-heated slavery debate.

Anti-slavery forces began to petition Congress, a right guaranteed in the Constitution, to bring the issue up for debate with the hope of enacting anti-slavery legislation. Petitions began to arrive in the tens of thousands and Adams took to reading these on the floor of the House much to the chagrin of Southern representatives, and even the Jackson administration. Finally, in 1836, a Representative from South Carolina moved that all petitions to the Congress that related to the issue of slavery be peremptorily dismissed without a reading, let alone debate. After several months of heated discussion a committee formed to resolve the issue recommended that any petition even remotely related to the topic of slavery be automatically banned from mention or discussion in the House. This resolution was subsequently passed and was known as the “gag rule.” John Adams, determining that the resolution was a corruption of the rule of law and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of the right of the people to petition Congress for the redress of grievances, set upon a mission that would consume his remaining public life (and perhaps was even instrumental in his death from a stroke while voting in House chambers).

Adams argued frequently and eloquently in House deliberations for the repeal of this onerous rule and for the end of slavery. He used trickery and parliamentary ingenuity to bring the subject up during debate on unrelated issues.

In all House proceedings, Adams was purposely contentious and controversial, using every available means to achieve his objective of stirring up debate on slavery. He intentionally baited irate House members to censure him for his conduct. When they did, he employed the time granted him for defense to expound his views on slavery-related issues. On one such occasion, Adams spoke for two weeks on his defense and threatened to go on for another unless the House tabled the censure resolution against him. The resolution was tabled, and Adams emerged doubly successful, for he had used those two weeks to denounce slaveholders for abusing slaves as well as free abolitionists, whose constitutional rights of petition, speech, and the press had been circumscribed. One House rival, Representative Henry Wise, called Adams ‘the acutest, the astutest, the archest enemy of southern slavery that ever existed.’

(U.S. Capital Historical Society)

Finally, in December of 1844 Adams enjoyed his greatest success when the “gag rule” was repealed. After nine years of fervently and relentlessly advancing his cause, sometimes single-handedly and enduring the reproach of much of the House of Representatives and, indeed, the nation, Adams had won the battle that represented to him the culmination and the epitome of his public career. Of this triumph, Adams wrote simply in his diary "Blessed, forever blessed be the name of God!"

John W. Whitehead: Would You Risk It All for Freedom?

By John W. Whitehead

“Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.”—Thomas Jefferson

Let me tell you a story about 56 men who risked everything—their fortunes and their lives—to take a stand for truth.

These men laid everything on the line, pledged it all— “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free. They believed that the rights we possess are, in their words, given to us by the Creator. At the heart of these rights is freedom. The freedom to speak, to think and to stand up for ideas—even when it’s not popular to do so, even when it’s dangerous to do so.

Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives. Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated.

Their signatures, famously scribbled on a piece of parchment, expressed their unfettered willingness to speak out against the most powerful empire in the world. These 56 men were the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Some we remember for their later accomplishments—such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both of whom went on to serve as American presidents. But there were others—such as Lewis Morris, Carter Braxton, Thomas Nelson and Richard Stockton—who do not often get mentioned, who sought not glory but rather a cause. They knew that sacrifice was necessary to secure freedom, and they were willing to make the sacrifice.

Lewis Morris lost his entire estate. The British ravaged and destroyed it, sending his family fleeing in desperation with nowhere to go.

Carter Braxton’s entire career and way of life were decimated. Losing his ships to the British Navy, his shipping company was forever lost and he was never able to revive it.

Thomas Nelson’s price for liberty was to the tune of $2 million—and that was in 1776. He ran up the $2 million credit debt for the “Patriots’ Cause.” In the end, repaying the debt cost him his entire estate. He died bankrupt and was buried in an unmarked grave.

Richard Stockton paid dearly also. Once a prominent judge, he gave up his cherished seat on the bench to fight for liberty. For his decision, he was dragged from his bed and tortured by British soldiers.

All in all, of those 56 signers, 9 died during the Revolution, 5 were captured by British soldiers, 18 had their homes looted and burned by the Red Coats, 2 were wounded in battle and 2 lost their sons during the war. Remarkably, these men—who were community leaders, business owners, judges, lawyers and inventors—sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor so that you and I could live freely in a nation where we have the right to stand up and speak out.

There are many more stories of heroic patriots throughout American history who have risked it all to preserve the freedoms we possess. Most of them have come from radically different walks of life—different upbringings, different educations, different ideas. But the one thing that unites them is their love of and commitment to freedom and their willingness to stand up and speak out, no matter the cost. Although many of them lost everything, they were willing to make the sacrifice to raise their voices in truth. They put freedom before their own interests. Because of their bravery in speaking truth to power and their commitment to unwavering principles, history has judged them to be extraordinary.

Thus, it is only right that we should still honor them today. Yet how do we do so? We go through the motions every Fourth of July, spouting patriotic sentiments and putting on displays of national pomp and circumstance that at the end of the day mean nothing. Sadly, as a nation, we have become jaded and apathetic, content to celebrate our independence with cookouts and fireworks but little else.

What we need is a fresh outlook and a renewed commitment to not let the American dream of freedom die. And we need to remember that “citizenship,” as actor Sam Waterston reminded a group of newly minted citizens last year on the Fourth of July, “isn’t just a great privilege and opportunity, though it is all that, it’s also a job.”

Gathered at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, those new citizens, having migrated to the U.S. from all over the world, took an oath of allegiance to the United States, solemnly swearing to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

I’ve always thought it a shame that Americans born in this country aren’t asked to make a similar pledge of allegiance to our Constitution. Still, pledge or not, we owe it to those who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms to make our citizenship count for something. We need to get educated about our rights. We need to take responsibility for what’s going on around us. And we need to stand up and support those who refuse to remain silent when they see an injustice and who, like those 56 brave men, dare to put it all on the line in order to speak truth to power.

As Waterston pointed out, “We all need to exercise our lungs in the discussion. This is not a job just for the talking heads on TV and the politicians. Nor for moneyed interests, nor for single-issue movements. As the WWI recruiting poster said, ‘Uncle Sam needs you’, needs us.”

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Founding Maryland

American Minute from William J. Federer

JUNE 20, 1632, King Charles I of England granted a charter for the Colony of Maryland, named for his Catholic wife, Queen Henrietta Maria, stating: "Charles, by the Grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith...Whereas our well beloved...subject Coecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, in our Kingdom of Ireland...being animated with a laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion...hath humbly besought Leave of Us that he may transport, by his own...expense, a numerous Colony of the English Nation, to certain...parts of America...partly occupied by Savages, having no Knowledge of the Divine Being."

Maryland's Charter continued: "With the increasing Worship and Religion of Christ within said Region...shall...be built...Churches, Chapels, and Places of Worship."

Lord Baltimore sent two ships, the Ark and the Dove, to settle the colony. Buying land from the Indians, they founded the city of St. Mary's as a refuge for persecuted Catholics.

In 1649, they extended liberty to Protestants by issuing the Toleration Act, which stated: "That no person... within this province...professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall...from henceforth be any ways troubled or molested...in respect of his or her religion."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.

Sibby Online: God, the basis to our freedoms

In his book, "America, A Call to Greatness", John Chalfant tells about the involvement of the clergy during the founding of America, an involvement that is much needed today, not what Chalfant calls "The Abandonment Clergy" who have given in to the secularists (beginning on Page 32):

The clergy throughout the colonies searched the Scriptures and taught the people what God said about virtually every issue pertaining to their political freedoms...

To read more, go to Sibby Online.

The Faith of the Father of our Country

One of the favorite lies secularists love to tell in their efforts to undermine belief in America's Christian heritage (and by extension confidence that America should retain Christian values) is that the Founders were not Christians. We usually hear that most were deists.

I think I've provided more than ample evidence over the course of this weekend's BATS posts that these suppositions are complete fallacy, but I'd like to take a closer look at this claim in order to expose it's complete falsity.

The dictionary defines "deism" as "a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe."

Since Christians believe that God not only created the laws of the universe, but has been actively involved in those laws and the affairs of humans from the Garden of Eden to Christ's death for humans on the cross and will be involved to the very end as prophesied by the book of Revelation and other eschatological references, deism is incompatible with Christianity.

Let's take a look at just one of the Founders to see if these claims hold up.

Was George Washington a deist or a Christian?

When Washington was approached in 1779 by the Delaware Indians who wanted their children to be taught in American schools, he told them: in 1779

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, written by Benjamin Morris in the 19th Century and published by American Vision, says of Washington on page 338

He had no taste for war or desire for military glory. “My first wish,” said he, “is to see the whole world in peace..."

I saw this appreciation for peace from the General of the American Revolution when I visited Mount Vernon in October 2007. Washington had a weather vane in the shape of a dove (a symbol of peace) specially built for his Mt. Vernon home. Washington was not a man who enjoyed war, but obviously from his military service recognized that it was sometimes necessary in pursuit of things life freedom and safety.

The Christian Life also tells us about some of Washington's regulations for the Continental Army which he commanded. On page 338-339:

Art. 2.—It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers diligently to attend divine service...and all officers who shall behave indecently at any place of divine worship shall, if commissioned officers, be brought before a general courtmartial, there to be publicly and severely reprimanded...

Washington would not even condone profanity from his subordinates. From page 339:

ART. 3.—Any non-commissioned officer or soldier who shall use any profane oath or execration shall incur the penalties expressed in the foregoing article...

He commanded that the ships of the navy have chaplains on board to ensure (page 339) that

divine service be performed in a solemn and reverent manner twice a day, and a sermon preached on Sunday, unless bad weather or other extraordinary accidents prevent it; and that they come all, or as many of the ship’s company as can be spared from duty, to attend every performance of the worship of Almighty God.

A general order issued by General Washington on July 9, 1776 says

"General Washington hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live, and act, as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. To the distinguished character of Patriot it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

In President Washington's inaugural address, he said

...it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes...No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States...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...resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity...so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views

This statement leaves no doubt whatsoever that George Washington not only believed in God, but believed he was listening to our prayers and supplications, and was actively involved in the affairs of men.

Consider also the language of George Washington's thanksgiving proclamation:

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour...all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed...for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

Again, Washington sounds thoroughly convinced not only in God's existence, but in His willingness to interfere in the affairs of men--indeed, Washington says God has already done so, before and during the American Revolution.

When I visited Mt. Vernon a few months ago, I saw Washington's tomb. He was originally interred in a small family tomb, but left instructions in his will for a larger tomb for himself and his wife Martha. His will laid out the exact specifications for the tomb, and he was moved there after it was completed.

I noticed on the back wall of the tomb an inscription:

I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die
St. John XI 25,26.

Why would a deist, who doesn't believe God cares about men or their affairs, have had a verse not only referring to Jesus Christ, but to the resurrection promised by Jesus Christ, on his tomb?

When historian Jared Sparks was seeking information about George Washington's religious beliefs, and specifically whether he was indeed a Christian, Washington's adopted daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis wrote him a letter in which she said

He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]...I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6]...

Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country.

I visited Mount Vernon and the Alexandria, Virginia area about six months ago, and I remember the distance between Washington's church and Mt. Vernon. Today, on a modern highway, it's only a few minutes. However, 200 years ago, in a carriage over a dirt path, it would have been a considerable journey to make, there and back, each Sunday.

I also seem to recall, though I can't at the moment verify the reference, that Washington often avoided taking communion because he did not want people to think he was taking it for show or for political gain.

Those who claim George Washington was not a Christian are either profoundly uninformed, or are intentionally deceptive. Either way, they make this profession to their own disrepute and shame.



*The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, by Benjamin Morris, Published May 2007 by American Vision. Excerpts reprinted by written permission of the publisher.

Sibby Online: 3 secular reasons for “Under God”

William J. Federer’s book "Three Secular Reasons Why America Should Be Under God" says (starting on page 73):

America’s founders had a "deity-based" belief system.

Why? Because:

Your RIGHTS cannot be taken away by the government if they come from a power "higher" than the government – i.e. God...

To read more, go to Sibby Online.

Why America Was Colonized

When we examine the Christian heritage of America, there are any number of points in history we could examine. Though the Christian character of the American people is waning in this age of secularization, we have been a predominately Christian culture since the very beginning.

There is a wealth of information available to illustrate the Christian character of the Founders of the United States, and we see much of it quoted in Christian patriotic circles (including this site). But what about all the way back, to the beginning of the Colonial period?

Here are some excerpts from the Virginia Charter of 1606:

James, by the grace of God [King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith], etc...Wee, greately commending and graciously accepting of theire desires to the furtherance of soe noble a worke which may, by the providence of Almightie God, hereafter tende to the glorie of His Divine Majestie in propagating of Christian religion...

So we see that one of the purposes of the Virginia Charter and the Jamestown Colony was the propagation of the Christian religion.

When the Plymouth Colony was established in 1620, drew up their first governing document, the famous Mayflower Compact. What does this document say about the religion, character and purpose of these settlers:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.

What were the first two reasons given for the establishment of the Plymouth Colony? The glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.

The Charter of Pennsylvania was granted by

CHARLES the Second, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith...

One of the reasons specified in the charter was to bring to the Natives of America "Love of Civil Societie and Christian Religion."

One of the reasons cited for the Charter of Carolina was "pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith." The charter also makes other references to God.

The Charter of Connecticut mentions the purpose to "invite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledge and Obedience of the only true GOD, and He Saviour of Mankind, and the Christian Faith..."

The Charter of Maryland was given to Lord Baltimore for his "pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion." The charter, like other charters, makes several references to the authority and providence of God.

The Charter of Massachusetts Bay mentions reliance upon God in carrying out the charter, with a purpose to introduce the Natives "to the KnowIedg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Saulor of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth."

The Charter of New England in 1620 was granted "in Hope thereby to advance the in Largement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God Almighty." It also contains many other references to the Christian faith and God's providence.

The Charter of Rhode Island mentions the providence and blessings of God, and the free exercise of "the true Christian ffaith and worshipp of God" and to "invite the native Indians of the countrie to the knowledge and obedience of the onlie true God, and Saviour of mankinde."

The Charter of Georgia guarantees "liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God" and "free exercise of their religion." Some of the early settlers in Georgia said their purpose in coming was "not to gain riches and honor, but singly this,—to live wholly to the glory of God” and “to make Georgia a religious colony, having no theory but devotion, no ambition but to quicken the sentiment of piety.”

The 1701 Charter of Delaware listed religious freedom prominently:

Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare, That no Person or Persons, inhabiting In this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge One almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and professes him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil Government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced, in his or their Person or Estate, because of his or their conscientious Persuasion or Practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry, contrary to his or their Mind, or to do or suffer any other Act or Thing, contrary to their religious Persuasion.

These are the most prominent references to God and Christianity in the original colonial charters, but you will find references to God in all of the founding colonial documents.

It boggles the mind that someone could be aware of the Christian faith and character of the colonial settlers and manage to insist that America's origins are not Christian.

Ron's Musings: American Theocracy?

From time to time you hear from someone or other who claims America is becoming a theocracy. Many believe the religious right controls the Republican Party and wants to institute theocracy in America. I have little patience for such rhetoric simply because it is demonstrably false.

Many of these same accusers love to tout "separation of church and state" and its hallowed place in the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution nowhere contains anything like separation of church and state but that is no deterrent to the disciples of the philosophy...

To read more, go to Ron's Musings.

First Principles, Part 1

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House has written a small book called “Rediscovering God in America.” In this easy to read, informational best-seller we are informed of the beliefs and temperament of the Founding Fathers when laying the foundation of the fledgling United States of America. The task was no small undertaking. It involved thinking “out of the box,” though that idiom had yet to be coined. All previous governments, certainly in the West, had been organized around a monarch, some benevolent, some not so much. In most cases the king or queen was held as appointed by God as their ruler and so had the absolute authority to rule as they wished. The monarch was the source of any rights and privileges that the people enjoyed and these were subject to suspension or revision on the whim of the king. The idea of a basic individual right was novel and yet to be truly exercised until the time of the Declaration of Independence. Further, there were few responsibilities of the monarch toward his subjects, except in so far as they benefited the king and his court.

The exceptionalism of our country rests upon the assertion that all rights come from God bestowed on each individual; this is the “first principle.” These rights, as enumerated in our founding documents, are granted by our Creator and cannot be amended or suspended except by a legal process specified in the Constitution that is designed to help maintain order and security for all citizens and guarantee the God-given rights to all law-abiding citizens.

Was it a nebulous, figurative “god” or God, Jehovah of the Bible that the founders thanked and appealed to in the Declaration of Independence and other central documents? All the evidence is for the latter. Most of the framers of our government were unabashed, practicing Christian men, though some, like Jefferson and Franklin expressed some philosophical doubts in some of their writings. Even so, they recognized that the American experiment could only be validated by asserting God-given rights, thus subordinating government to the people. Neither Franklin or Jefferson ever claimed to be anything other than Christian.

If you search “separation of church and state” you will find numerous sites devoted to the “constitutional principle” of a “wall of separation of church and state.” Most readers of this blog are already aware that there is no such article or wording stated in the Constitution, yet there are innumerable organizations that will have you believe that it is the foundational principle of the Constitution. (The origins of the phrase are explained in this short piece by Robert Meyer at Renew America.) The “wall of separation” was used in a context virtually opposite of how it is currently used, in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists reassuring them that there could never be a religion sanctioned by the federal government. The Baptists were fearful that Methodists and Congregationalists (majority denominations) might become favored and too influential in civil matters in Connecticut. Jefferson purposefully did not address the Baptists' fear of state intrusion in religious matters.

But those wishing to eliminate any trace of our Christian heritage are determined to revise history and claim that the founders were mostly atheists (e.g., Franklin) or, at best, Deists (e.g., Jefferson), but at any rate they most assuredly were not Christians of the “born again” variety. Jefferson, Hancock, Madison, Franklin, et al didn’t take this God-talk seriously but used such language as a form of embellished rhetoric common at the time, such as “purple mountains majesty,” in which case the mountains aren’t really purple, are they?

“Rediscovering God in America” takes a close look at the beliefs of several of the founding fathers as expressed in their many letters and writings. Next, the reader is taken on a walking tour of several sites in Washington, DC including the Jefferson Memorial, the U.S. Capital and the Supreme Court, and others, and the expressly Judeo-Christian symbols and engraved words are pointed out and explained. Examples of the Christian references in writing and in the buildings and monuments of Washington will be the topic in Part 2 of this post.

The Founders and their Republic Were Christian

ALL OF THE 55 SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS EXCEPT THOMAS FITZSIMMONS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND DAVID CARROL OF MARYLAND WHO WERE CATHOLICS; AND THE GENIUS, BEN FRANKLIN WHO HAS BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED OF BEING A DEIST.

The Deists believe in a prime mover who is no longer involved in the affairs of men.

The greatest miracleof Philadelphia in 1787 was when Ben Franklin correctly observed that "unless God builds a house, those who build, labor in vain"; he also pointed out the active and miraculous intervention of Almighty Creator God in the impossible victory over the strongest army and navy on earth. After these and other declarations of Faith and Bible verses..old Ben said, "Mr. President(the smiling George Washington)I move that we began each days deliberations with prayer!"

Only a belief in the depraved and selfish nature of man could have conceived of a government to protect the subjects from those who held the power. Every founding member was familiar with Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". THIS IS THE ANTITHESIS OF THE ABSURD NOTIONS OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST THAT NUT CASE DARWIN FOISTED ON US AND CAUSED THE KILLING OF MILLIONS OF JEWS.

EVERY TIME TRUE, LOVING, HUMBLE CHRISTIANITY IS THE FOUNDATION OF PUBLIC POLICY, THE LEAST POWERFUL LIKE THE OLD, WIDOWS; AND THE UNBORN ARE DEFENDED...and when darwinism is served...suffering and cruelty always follows!!!

JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD OTHERWISE THERE COULD BE NO AMERICA...ONLY A DEPRAVED WORLD.

HE IS RISEN INDEED...MARK THE FREEDOM POET

A Greeting from Me to You!

Merry Christmas 

& 

God's Blessings Your Way!

ACLU claiming conspiracy?

I read "ACLU lies about WorldNetDaily" by Joseph Farah (December 20, 2007 on WND), which led me to reading what Kary L. Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan wrote about them in the Detroit News. The piece is called, " Freedom of religion includes defending diversity of beliefs". Almost made me all teary-eyed. Teary-eyed from laughing -- not crying.

The ACLU exec writes, "Unfortunately, our victories for religious freedom are overshadowed by well-organized attempts to demonize the ACLU and curtail religious diversity by sounding the alarm bells on the purported "war on Christmas." '

Moss seems so proud when she says, "Yet for true religious liberty to flourish, everyone must be free to worship without government interference."

Excuse me, but aren't courts part of the government?

She goes on, "For instance, Christmas displays -- including nativity scenes -- are perfectly acceptable at homes, churches and even, in come cases, on city property."

Well, thank you ACLU for telling us where (according to your perception) it is acceptable to have Christmas displays. Yes, thank you and the government -- I mean the courts -- for not interfering.

But after all the discussion about Christmas displays and then religious displays, she suddenly says, "That is why the ACLU of Michigan is proud to count among its clients Joseph Hanas, an observant Catholic from Genesee County who was sent to jail for asking a drug court judge to remove him from a drug rehabilitation program that coerced him into practicing the Pentecostal faith. He was forced to read the Bible for seven hours a day and was tested on Pentecostal principles. The staff also told him that Catholicism was a form of witchcraft and they confiscated both his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book."

I think someone should explain to Ms. Moss that there is a big difference between a religious Christmas display and being "CONFINED" in a place that forces actual religious practices and teachings upon a person. In one case, anyone who wishes can avoid, ignore and freely walk away. In the second case, they are forced to remain and endure the exposure.

By the way, Ms. Moss, what if the majority want a Nativity Scene on the court house lawn? Are you going to defend our right to religious freedom against the religion of secularism that strives to suppress anything remotely of Christian nature, or have you determined that secularism trumps all freedoms and rights and what have you(s)?

It's "THAT" Time of Year Again!

Get ready for the ACLU and pals to move into Scrooge mode! On the bright side though... it looks like the numbers are growing and more and more Americans are ready to take Christmas back!!!

"Saturday, November 24, 2007

HOLIDAY BLUES
Americans get fed up with 'Happy Holidays'
But many Democrats in new poll can't stomach 'Merry Christmas'

Posted: November 24, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


A new poll finds Americans overwhelmingly prefer that stores use the phrase "Merry Christmas" in their seasonal advertising rather than "Happy Holidays.

The Rasmussen survey found 67 percent favor "Merry Christmas" while just 26 percent prefer "Happy Holidays."

Rasmussen said the poll results were the same for males and females, and there were few demographic differences.

A sharp difference, however, showed up between Republicans and Democrats.

While 88 percent of Republicans prefer "Merry Christmas," just 57 percent of Democrats favor the saying."

(Read the entire article)

Merry Christmas from me to you!

Secession Making a Comeback?

From Yahoo News:

Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.

They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government.

If allowed to go their own way, New Englanders "probably would allow abortion and have gun control," Hill said, while Southerners "would probably crack down on illegal immigration harder than it is being now."

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, but few people think it is politically viable.

I agree that it's unlikely to succeed (remember the last attempt some 150 years ago?). But such a strong desire should tell us something: there is deep dissatisfaction all across the country with the way things are going, for a number of often divergent reasons.

There is a solution, though. And while I admit it would also be an uphill battle, it has two things going for it: (1) it would preserve the union and (2) unlike many things that go on today would actually be Constitutional.

It's called "federalism." It's how our country was designed to operate, and it's how we did operate until about 60 years ago when FDR radically expanded the power of the central/federal government.

The serious student of American history knows that for decades after the United States became a nation, the states saw themselves with great autonomy from the government in Washington, D.C. For example, people in Virginia saw themselves as Virginians first, and saw Virginia as their "country." In this, they were not being rebellious or radical, merely reflective of the autonomy guaranteed to the states by our U.S. Constitution.

We see the doctrine of shared powers or co-sovereignty not only in the voluminous writings of the Founders, but in even more concrete pillars of our government.

The Tenth Amendment, after all, states "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." Sadly, in the last 60 years this has been reinterpreted to essentially say, "The powers not prohibited to the United States by the Constitution, regardless of what the states or the people have to say, are reserved to the federal government."

Consider also that the electoral college, the system by which we elect presidents, as opposed to popular vote, is specifically designed to empower the states. Presidents are not elected by an across-the-board vote of all U.S. citizens, but are elected by blocks of electoral votes that belong specifically to each state based on the state's population. The Founders saw the need for the states to have specific and substantive powers in order for federalism to work...and to provide a check on central government.

Recall, too, that prior to the 17th Amendment, United States senators were NOT elected by a vote of the people, but by the state legislatures. This was yet another instance of sway and co-power between the states and the central (federal) government.

But now the states have no direct influence on the federal legislative body, and some are very eager to do away with the electoral college. Beyond that, the 10th Amendment is so much toilet paper, and federalism has devolved from "shared power" to a situation where the only power the states have is in matters that the federal government doesn't deem worthy of it's magnificent consideration. In other words, the states get the crumbs that fall from the table of the federal government.

A return to federalism would be good, not only to disarm secessionist talk like that cited above, but would restore health to our nation. The Founders saw the grave dangers of a powerful central government and accordingly they set up our system of federalism to combat that danger. But this federalist protection has been short-circuited and disabled, and we are suffering for it.

We get one-size-fits-all solutions imposed from Washington that really don't fit the various states well at all (some are populous, some are sparse, some are urban, some are rural, some are manufacturing states, some are ag states, some are liberal, some are conservative). And we have imperial edicts handed down from Washington that were once decided state by state according to the needs and dispositions of each state.

Do I think it'll be easy to return to federalism? No, not at all; in fact, it's sadly unlikely. But all movements invariably start with a handful of people. And they build as people see the need. If we don't turn back to the way things were supposed to be, we're going to end up with the solidification of the shadow of oligarchy we currently live under. Or we'll end up a fragmented continent, as the secessionists want. Or both in succession.

Actors Taking a Stand

"MEDIA MATTERS
Actors tell Hollywood 'Enough is Enough'
Petition set up to seek respect for Jesus' name

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 22, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Actress Kathy Griffin's rant at the Emmy awards in which she told Jesus to "suck it" has triggered a petition campaign intended to tell Hollywood "Enough is Enough!"

Please read the above article from WorldNetDaily.com in its entirety and then sign the petition. A petition that stems, in part, from...

"I guess hell froze over," Griffin announced. "A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. He had nothing to do with this. ... Suck it, Jesus! This award is my god now."

(The above quote is from another WorldNetDaily.com article on the Griffin matter - Sept. 11, 2007. Please read it as well.)

From the signatures on the petition, it looks like actors aren't the only ones saying "Enough is Enough"!!! Will you be signing as well???

A Message from Cynthia Stocklaufer

Just wanted to give you a quick update. Gary had surgery on Friday. He is now home and doing well. Now we have one more family member to get home and that is Baby Max. We are praying that the courts will grant us a rehearing soon. Everyday he is not here is another day we can never get back. I'm sure he is growing and learning new things. We miss him so very much. Bobby dreams about him on a regular basis and questions me about when can he see his brother. When will the judge let his brother come home? He misses him. It is heartbreaking. I have to remind him that God gives us free will and sometimes people really mess it up. Bobby told his Daddy (Gary) that he was letting him have surgery only so the judge would let his Brother come home. But he doesn't want him to lose too much, he wants him to stay the same because he loves him. We are wearing baby blue ribbons until Baby Max comes home. We will continue on this journey knowing God will bring Max home.

Cynthia Stocklaufer

Cynthia (the wife of Gary Stocklaufer) also shared her true appreciation when she wrote...

Dr. Barker and Renassaince Hospital in Dallas are the ones who donated the surgery. They were wonderful to the entire family. The entire staff is top notch and truly care about the patient.

Views of Mount Rushmore

My family and I went to Mt. Rushmore for breakfast this morning. We used to do that more frequently back in the old days before I seemed so busy, but we still get up there a few times a year.

For those of you who aren't blessed to live within 30 minutes of the Shrine of Democracy, I've uploaded a few pics I took today. Almost everyone has seen pictures of Mt Rushmore, but you seldom see any published from these angles. There's a path you can take that goes below the monument, around the boulder field of debris that was blown off the face of the mountain.

My heart beats a little faster, every time I look at Mt. Rushmore and reflect on how blessed of God I am to live in such a wonderful country...and in such a wonderful place like the Black Hills.

P.S. It was very overcast this morning; that's why the pics seem a little dark.

DV Poll Results: Declaration of Independence

The results are in from last week's Dakota Voice poll:

The principles of the Declaration of Independence....

Established a nation on Christian principles under God 87.5%
Established a secular nation that decides its own truths 6.25%
Were a good start, but fall short of modern ideals 3.13%
Are obsolete in the world in which we currently live 3.13%

Thank you to those who participated.

Since murderer Elijah Page is scheduled to be executed this coming week, this week's poll is on the death penalty.

The Source of America's Greatness

By Bob Ellis
Dakota Voice

In this day and age when the founding principles--and the Christian origin of those principles--of the United States are under attack from liberals, secularists, humanists, socialists, and Marxists, it is more important than ever to maintain familiarity with the facts and truths of where we came from. If someone is able to rewrite the past, he is also able to rewrite the present and alter the course of the future.

In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian, traveled America as it was coming into its own as a nation. He wrote down his observations about this unique new country in Democracy in America. In some ways, his account of American society may be even more valuable than some of the Founders writings as a tool for accurately seeing our history as it was. After all, he wasn't just some super-patriotic American who might be accused of glossing over details. (Full Article)