Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for August, 2012

Bad News from Evangelical Christianity


Bad News from Evangelical Christianity

statismA recent poll conducted among 1500 adults confirms what we have long suspected: even Evangelical Christians support statism. The polling group—Public Religion Research Institute—determined that social issues, like abortion, are proving to be less important to Evangelical voters when compared with economic issues like unemployment. Apparently the economy trumps infanticide even among those who have been historically pro-life.

This shouldn’t come as too great of a surprise to any readers of this site. The allure of statist control is a familiar refrain trumpeted by the mainstream media. It was only a matter of time before conservative Evangelicals should begin to believe the lies. What should come as a surprise though, is that Democrats see this as an opportunity to pull voters their way for 2012. While most Christians will (and should) voice support for economic aid to those hurt by the downturn in the economy, it is disheartening to see that some apparently believe the federal government should be the mechanism for this aid. This self-inflicted view that the government is the ultimate solution will only exacerbate the problems. When Americans turn to the government for help they can be assured that help will come packaged with red tape.

What is particularly disturbing about this poll is that the Evangelical churches in America are supposed to be the very ones who understand where and how financial hope should be distributed. Far from being an anonymous government check in the mailbox, real financial help comes in the form of a recognized face or faces at the front door, ready and willing to strive and help the individual in need. The apostle made it clear: “The one who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). However, this same man also gave the admonition to “do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Galatians 6:10). Christians should be relying on fellow Christians, not federal bureaucrats, to come to their aid in time of need.

As a deacon at my own church, I can assure you that this very thing happens from time to time. Members of the church occasionally come to us, seeking financial help during difficult periods. Sadly though, many of these same people only think to come to us when it is entirely too late: the shelves have been bare for weeks, the car has been repossessed, and the house is already in foreclosure. We have a fairly steady supply of funds coming in to the church for these “times of benevolence,” but most members only use it as a “last resort.” They tend to believe that coming to the deacons and elders for help is the ultimate form of humiliation and destitution, when, in reality, it should be their “first resort.” I know for a fact that many Evangelical churches are actually looking for opportunities to give away money and food because the members of the church are too proud to take a “handout.” This is not only a tragedy; it is a waste of time and resources. It is, in actuality, poor stewardship.

Evangelical Christians should be the ones leading the charge into the economic mess of America. Although few Evangelicals actually tithe 10 percent to their local church, there is often plenty of money residing in the benevolence coffers because even Evangelicals look to the government rather than the church when the bankbook and the pantry become thin. They have willingly handed the church’s God-ordained role as the guardian of the poor and widows and orphans over to the federal government, all the while complaining that the government is involved in too many things that it ought not be. Hello pot, meet kettle. It is this sort of hypocrisy that the Democrats are counting on to be able to skim a significant portion off the conservative Evangelical vote next year. They really don’t even care if you lie about how you voted after the fact. They don’t need your allegiance, just your vote.

Preparing to Vote Number 7


Another term you have heard the Political Left use is “Collective”, or one of its derivatives. You can expect they will continue to use this term because it reflects their committed ideology, philosophy and bases for how they want to run the country.

Here is what they hope you will not find out for yourself;

Collectivism: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an “in-group”, in what specific context it is defined). Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation. It is used, and has been used, as an element in many different and diverse types of government and political, economic and educational philosophies throughout history including democracy, totalitarian nationalism, monarchy, socialism, and communism. In modern times, collectivism is sometimes thought to be synonymous with socialism or specifically Leninism, though collectivism more accurately simply means “group oriented” or “group orientation”. Most societies contain elements of both individualism and collectivism.

Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization. Monarchy is an example of a system that makes use of vertical collectivism. [1]

In political economy, horizontal-collectivism is often associated with the economic theories of socialism, which call for some form of co-operative or collective ownership of the means of production and collective decision-making or worker’s self-management within economic enterprises.[2]

  • Corporatism refers to a form of collectivism that views the whole as being greater than the sum of its individual parts, and gives priority to group rights over individual rights.[3][4]

Politics

According to Moyra Grant, in political philosophy “collectivism” refers to any philosophy or system that puts any kind of group (such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc.) before the individual.[5] According to Encyclopædia Britannica, “collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the perceived injustices of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In Communist systems collectivist economics are carried to their furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy.”[6]

However, political collectivism is not necessarily associated with support for states, governments, or other hierarchical institutions. There are variants of anarchism, such as collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism, which are collectivist. Collectivist anarchists, particularly Mikhail Bakunin, were among the earliest critics of authoritarian communism. They agree with communists that the means of production should be expropriated from private owners and converted to common property,[7] but they advocate the ownership of this property to be vested by a loose group of decentralized communes rather than to be held in common by all of society. Nevertheless, unlike anarcho-communists, collectivist anarchists supported a wage system and markets in non-capital goods.[citation needed] Thus, Bakunin’s “Collectivist Anarchism”, notwithstanding the title, is seen as a blend of individualism and collectivism.[8]

Anarcho-communism is a more comprehensive form of collectivism which advocates not only the collectivization of the means of production but of the products of labor as well.[9] According to anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin, “And as long as dwelling-houses, fields, and factories belong to isolated owners, men will have to pay them, in one way or another, for being allowed to work in the fields or factories, or for living in the houses. The owners will accept to be paid by the workers in gold, in paper-money, or in cheques exchangeable for all sorts of commodities. But how can we defend labour-notes, this new form of wagedom, when we admit that houses, fields, and factories will no longer be private property, and that they will belong to the commune or the nation?”[10]

Economics

Leroy-Beaulieu says that that Albert Schäffle gave the first definition to the phrase “collectvisim”. Collectvism, for them both, is a kind of communism in which quotas are set on quality in addition to those set on quantity. (( Collectivism. 1908.))

Generally speaking, economic collectivism can refer to two distinct concepts: that property (usually in reference to productive property) be owned by all of society in common, or that possessions be owned by collective groups that use the property. The first concept is related to Communism, communalism and some forms of socialism, while the latter concept is related to forms of socialism based on independent cooperative organizations such as Syndicalism, Guild socialism, libertarian socialism and market socialism. Additionally, capitalist systems that largely consist of either cooperative or corporate ownership structures, with ownership being vested in collective entities of legal owners rather than the producers/users of the property, can be characterized as being collectivist to some degree.

Collectivism in the field of economics holds that some things should be owned by all of society and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by just individuals or private parties. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Early economic systems such as communalism and tribal societies practiced this form of collectivism. Collectivism can also apply to public ownership over the means of production, while others argue[who?] that all valued commodities, like environmental or consumer goods, should be regarded as public goods and placed under public ownership. In health care, collective action by trade unions and other professional bodies throughout Europe in the early twentieth century established mutual sickness funds and contracts with doctors and hospitals enabling workers to be assured of access to health care and sometimes sick pay collectively funded by all the members of the trade union or profession.

Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property. For instance, company property in corporations is usually managed by specialized managers, despite being owned in some cases by hundreds of shareholders. Anarcho-communists, who argue for the immediate abolition of the state, wish to place all goods under communal access without a state or manager. They argue that since the value of labor cannot truly be measured, individuals should be free to produce and consume to their own self-determined needs. In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International, where the principles of anarcho-communism were first laid out, it was stated:

The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.[citation needed]

Anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin believed that a lack of collectivization of goods would be a dis-service to individuals.[11]

Typology

Collectivism can be typified as “horizontal collectivism”, wherein equality is emphasized and people engage in sharing and cooperation, or “vertical collectivism”, wherein hierarchy is emphasized and people submit to authorities to the point of self-sacrifice.[12] Horizontal collectivism is based on the assumption that each individual is more or less equal, while vertical collectivism assumes that individuals are fundamentally different from each other.[13] Social anarchist Alexander Berkman, who was a horizontal collectivist, argued that equality does not imply a lack of unique individuality, but an equal amount of freedom and equal opportunity to develop one’s own skills and talents, equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from leveling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in leveling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence.[14]

Indeed, horizontal collectivists argue that the idea of individuals sacrificing themselves for the “group” or “greater good” is nonsensical, arguing that groups are made up of individuals (including oneself) and are not a cohesive, monolithic entity separate from the self. But most social anarchists do not see themselves as collectivists or individualists, viewing both as illusory ideologies based on fiction .[15]

Horizontal collectivists tend to favour democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups.[13]

 

DEFIANCE: Standing Up to Christ-O-Phobic Thugs


 

By / 28 August 2012 / 26 Comments

Our nation is totally open to anyone and to anything, that is, unless, of course, you’re a Christian. And if that’s the case, then you’re likely to get more sympathy from a badger with minimal sleep than you will from the liberal left who are hard at work making your life hard.

The liberal, hypocritical, tolerant thought police of the 21st century are about as easy going with Christianity as Ike Turner was with Tina every time she botched a song.

The sport of the Left is Christian-suppression, and man, are they getting good at it. Check it out:

· Liberal, hypocritical, social de-constructors have effectively removed Christianity from our public schools and universities. They have completely deleted the truth concerning the massive role the Christian faith played in our Founding Fathers formulating this great land. And God help you if you, Christian teacher or student, attempt to re-introduce it.

· Liberal, hypocritical Hollywood-en heads routinely show Christians in television and film as cross-eyed morons who are repressed and offensive, buckle-shoed, GED killjoys sporting a 70-plus-pound Bible with a minus-70 IQ.

· Liberal, hypocritical activist judges, tanked up on triple espresso no-foam lattes and Maureen Dowd’s latest tweet, zealously misinterpret and misapply the Constitution to rid from American government and public life, any semblance of Christian thought. They do this with masturbatory preening glee, congratulating themselves for being Titans of religious freedom … protectors of their envisioned nuevo nation.

Hey, ludicrous Left: what’s up with your Christophobia? Why so intolerant, Ms. Tolerance? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid we’re going to bring dignity back to this country? Are you afraid righteousness is once again going to be re-introduced into our land, before you licentiously sink it?

Are you afraid of absolute truth being tabled into the public arena and ruining your randy relativism? Are you afraid of personal accountability and responsibility? Are you afraid that the moral law is going to wreck your amoral life?

Is that it? Is that why you’re working overtime to shut Christianity out of the public arena? Will Christianity ruin your narcissistic fantasy starring you as the center of the universe?

Listen, concerned Christian; even though the times are going to get rougher than Joan Rivers’ morning breath before they get any better in the United States of Liberal Acrimony, we must not acquiesce. It’s time, ecclesiastically and politically, to fight the tolerance movement’s intolerance of our faith, which was the faith of our Founding Fathers and the faith that has sustained our nation’s state of blessedness.

As Christians, we must preserve our rights and freedoms and not allow the Left to shove their Liberal crap down our collective throat. This means we are going to have to get off our collective butts and intellectually fight against the intolerance of Christianity by the “tolerant” liberal and hypocritical Left.

 

A MUST READ FOR MULTIPLE REASONS


Rape Victim Stands Up for Todd Akin

rebeccakiessling_CroppedIt’s hard for men to speak out on the issue of abortion and rape. First, men do not get pregnant, and second, men rarely get raped by women, although it does happen. Rape is not about sex. It’s about power and domination.

So when Todd Akin used the phrase “illegitimate rape,” it sounded chauvinistic. Is there any other kind of rape? Isn’t all rape “illegitimate”? By definition, rape is illegitimate.

I believe the reason so many men like Sean Hannity and Mitt Romney threw Akin under the bus so quickly is that there was no way they were going to win an argument with an already biased pro-Obama media and the pro-abortion attack machine that’s always on the march.

While doing my daily reading to keep up on the news, I can across a post from a victim of rape. Not only was she raped, but she was conceived as the result of a rape. Her name is Rebecca Kiessling, and she writes the following:

“Though I’ve previously written that the comment [by Congressman Akin] was a faux pas and unnecessarily uttered, I’d like to address the underlying implications of such a statement, which was very similar to Ron Paul’s phraseology about an ‘honest rape’ when he too was asked about abortion in the case of rape. Are legislators really to blame for implying that there are false claims of rape? Is there a history of illegitimate rape claims, particularly as it relates to this issue of pregnancy and rape? Do some women fabricate these claims? If so, who is to blame for any tendency in our society to question the veracity of rape victims’ accounts? Skeptical lawmakers, judges, juries, media, and the public, or the women who have cried wolf?

Remember that Rebecca is a victim and product of rape. When she was in law school she was beaten up by her “boyfriend” that left her with a broken jaw, loose teeth, and a crushed upper jaw. This experience led her into family law. She continues:

“As a young attorney, I was idealistic and naïve – absolutely indignant that any judge or Friend of the Court referee would dare question the claims of a victim of domestic violence. After all, she finally had the courage to leave the abusive situation after having been threatened, abused and terrorized. How on Earth could a judge or Friend of the Court referee doubt her account and refuse to grant, or dismiss, a Personal Protection Order? I thought that these people must be uncaring women-haters, showing deference only to men. Maybe they were even abusers themselves?!”

It was through experience that she learned that some of her clients lied about their claims of domestic violence so they could get the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute. “Finally, the reality struck me,” she writes. “These judges are skeptical because there are women who cry wolf. That’s when I began seeing the judges in a new light, and my resentment grew toward the women who lied. I saw the reality that my clients who really were abused had a difficult time with the court system because of these other women who were ruining it for the real victims.”

Because she needed extensive reconstructive dental work done, she had been referred to a free service of the Give Back A Smile Program. Because it was free and offered to people of domestic violence, she had to prove she was a “legitimate victim,” that she wasn’t a fraud. The scrutiny was not because the people involved in the program were not sensitive to the issue of rape; it was “the result of women who have cried wolf.”

Do women lie about being rape? Not all of them, and it’s the liars that make it bad for real victims. Rebecca Kiessling mentions “the Duke LaCrosse team false rape claim case.” But there’s an even more famous case that served as the basis of the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion case — the testimony of Norma McCorvey — Jane Roe. It was her claim of rape that set the case in motion. This is her testimony on January 21, 1998, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“My name is Norma McCorvey. I’m sorry to admit that I’m the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn’t happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made rape even worse? A gang rape! It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling.”

The death of tens of millions of pre-born babies is the result of the pro-abortion community lying about rape. Rebecca Kiessling sums it up nicely:

“So the next time you hear anyone complaining about Todd Akin’s ‘legitimate rape’ remark, I want you to remember that abortion rights activists are the women who cried wolf. They are the ones who are squarely responsible for the skepticism we see today regarding women who claim to be pregnant by rape, and they’ve set an example for other women to lie about it too. For those on the left who criticize Akin, I can assuredly call you out as hypocrites.

Let’s petition to get Rebecca Kiessling to speak at the Republican National Convention. Every American should hear her story.

WHEN


Looking back thru the past 4 years, many “Whens” pop up. Read them all to better understand where we are going as a country….
WHEN – he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muramar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco – a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home – people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it didn’t matter.
WHEN – he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this Nation” into something else, people said it didn’t matter.WHEN – it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in “Explicit Consent,” harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama’s Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – as President of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time ally, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn’t matter.


WHEN – he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he claimed he was a Christian during the election and tapes were later made public that showed Obama speaking to a Muslim group and ‘stating’ that he was raised a Muslim, was educated as a Muslim, and is still a Muslim, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN –he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people woke up— but it was too late. Add these up one by one and you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama is determined to turn America into a Marxist-Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this do an Internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph.
Will it read as above or will it be a happier ending for most of America?

Don’t just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. We all need to pull together or watch the demise of a free democratic society. Pray for Americans to seek the truth and take action for it will keep us FREE. Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, NorthKorea or Iran. Our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington, DC . The government will not help, so we need to do it ourselves.

Question….will you delete this, or pass it on to others who don’t know about Obama’s actions and plans for the
USA , so that they may know how to vote in November, 2012 and the ensuing years?

It’s your decision. I believe it does matter. How about you?
WHENNovember 2012 comes, it will matter who you vote for!

Harry Reid Spin


Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Senator Harry Reid’s great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory:

On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: ‘Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.’

So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.

Harry Reid:

Believe it or not, Harry Reid’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:

“Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.”

NOW THAT’s how it’s done, Folks! That’s real POLITICAL SPIN !!!

Preparing to Vote Number 6


Rejoice! This will conclude the articles of parts of the history of the start of our Nation. There is much that I did not report, miracles of God; great prayers by some of the Founding Fathers and others. I wish to end with some words from some of those early men. You will see that two of them became fearful of the same things that concern a lot of us today. All underlining and bold prints are mine, Benny Broussard (my dad)

On June 29, 1788, George Washington sent a letter to General Benjamin Lincoln, his deputy in the War, who had accepted British General Cornwallis sword at the surrender at Yorktown

“No Country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings…Much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. The Great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far….to forsake us in the midst of it….We may, now and then, get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path.”

On March 11, 1792, from Philadelphia, President George Washington wrote a letter to John Armstrong:

“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.

In 1781, Thomas Jefferson made this statement in ‘Query XVlll’ of his ‘Notes on the State of Virginia’. Excerpts of these statements are engraved on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

On June 12, 1823, in a letter to Justice William Johnson regarding the meaning to the Constitution., Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

David Josiah Brewer (1837-1910) a Justice of the United State Supreme Court, gave the court’s opinion in the 1892 case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, (143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226): (I, Benny, selected only the portion that encompasses “Christian nation in the case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors) “……this is a Christian nation….We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.”

John Jay (1745-1829) was the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President George Washington. He was a Founding Father, a member of the First and Second Continental Congresses and served as the President of the Continental Congress. On October 12, 1816, John Jay admonished:

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) 28th President of the United States. On July 4, 1913, in a message delivered at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, declared: “Here is the nation God has builded by our hands. What shall we do with it?”

Dear readers, very soon we will be choosing a person to be our President for the next four years. Now is the time to pray diligently that we will vote wisely. Here are my personal thoughts;

  • I believe that this could be the last chance to “get it right”. This nation is facing bankruptcy big time. It was reported that during 2013, the U.S.’s debt will be 90 per cent of its GDP. I do not see how we can survive like that.
  • It is time to take a good look at the question that President Woodrow Wilson asked on July 4, 1913, “Here is the nation God has builded by our hands. What shall we do with it?” I admit that neither candidate is all that I desire to be my President. HOWEVER, to refrain from voting is a very poor choice. The way I see it is that one of them is much worse than the other. I will vote for whom I believe is the better of the two.

The ball is in your court, our court, our children’s court. To whom do we pass the ball? Which candidate will govern more like our Founding Fathers? Which one will be far from it?

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: