Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Founding Fathers’

Democrats Are Dangerously Close to Changing Laws So Our President Is Elected by Popular Vote

BY: ANDREW MORGAN | JULY 28, 2022

The left’s push for a popular vote for the presidency directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution.

Author Andrew Morgan profile

ANDREW MORGAN

The left is at it again, and conservatives need to be on high alert. The left has been pushing for a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States for years. Since 2017, 10 more states have either signed the National Popular Vote bill into law or approved the bill in one state legislative chamber. This should be a grave concern because it directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution. If not stopped, the American system of presidential elections will be changed potentially forever.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted by 15 state legislatures plus Washington, D.C., and passed in 41 legislative chambers in 24 states. For the proposal to become the law of the land, enough states totaling at least 270 electoral votes would be required to enact the law, and states would then commit their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally, regardless of which candidate won at the state level.

The states that have enacted the compact represent 195 electoral votes: Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, California, New York, and the District of Columbia. States with passage in one chamber include Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Successful passage in all of these states represents 283 electoral votes, enough to change the law and make our presidential election decided via popular vote rather than the Electoral College.

Democrats have long been unhappy with the electoral process, unless, of course, their candidate won. When their candidate loses, debate begins anew about how unfair the Electoral College is. The argument is always the same. Since we conduct our elections by democratic process, it makes sense to elect our nation’s executive according to the will of the majority with a voting plurality.

Five times, presidential candidates have won elections without the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and Donald Trump (2016).

Minority and Less Populated Areas Would Lack Representation

The commonly heard sentiment during election cycles is “every vote matters.” However, what is not fair is that if the president is elected based on a plurality, then the minority would not have a chance of having their candidate elected. Only the concerns and interests of more heavily populated areas, such as the East and West coast cities, would be represented. Interests of the minority and less populated areas would naturally be set aside and of little interest to future presidential candidates. Worse, the executive would be beholden and accountable solely to the majority.

This condition was not the intent of our founders. Their intent was to ensure that the nation’s highest executive, as well as the executive branch, represented the interests of all Americans regardless of political affiliation. A future president would need to appeal to those concerned about not just national but also regional issues.

Further, the Electoral College provided a means to disburse and decentralize power. State electors are elected just days before and are unknown until just prior to an election to prevent undue influence to stay true to the people’s votes in their states. Our founders framed it so as to prevent collusion and cabalist (their word) behavior, preclude violence, and thwart involvement of foreign powers.

Cabalism Comes to Light

Following the 2020 election, our founders’ concerns came to light and fruition. Our national elections have been fraught with cabalist behavior, undue influence, numerous forms of cheating, as well as foreign interference. The tyranny they feared came to pass, driven by collusion among the administrative state, the legislative branch, legacy media, Big Tech, and nongovernmental organizations. An independent executive branch separate from the legislature has become an illusion.

In Federalist Paper 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “the process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of the president will never fall with a lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and a little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first owners of a single state, but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union.” Hamilton would have been appalled today to have witnessed the travesty undermining his sentiment.

So why does all this matter?

An Oppressive Majority

It matters because the idea of a national popular vote is gaining steam and if adopted by enough states, the Electoral College will become irrelevant. Minority voter interests will no longer matter at the national level. Only the whims of the majority will. And the result will be precisely why Socrates opposed a democratic form of government. Once a majority is established, it finds a way to remain permanent, and the majority class will become oppressive to the minority class. There will be no means to overturn the majority, no matter how skewed the majority’s view may be.

The implications for the country are vast and would make the United States just another oppressive tyrannical state. The ultimate reason for the success of the U.S. was that its founders held a belief that we are created and guided by a higher power, and they recognized that men are inherently corruptible. They implemented controls to prevent those with ambitions from achieving outright power over the minority, thus making the U.S. unique among nations.

Left Looks to Crush the Right

The left’s tactics are in high gear, accelerating in an attempt to overwhelm conservatives and Republicans to a tipping point at which the left acquires complete control and the right becomes powerless.

The left’s all-out assault has become abundantly clear since President Joe Biden took office. As soon as Democrats attained the presidency and the narrowest of majorities in the House and Senate, they pressed forward with their agenda, nearly unimpeded had it not been for the likes of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and perhaps divine intervention.

Whether changing voting laws in its favor, creating crises to circumvent the laws already in place, continually flooding the courts with litigation designed to throw sand in the gears of transparent elections, or changing the electoral process altogether, the left’s efforts to gain and retain control, by any means necessary, will not relent.

In addition to ongoing election integrity efforts across the nation, it is imperative that conservatives push back attempts to advance a national popular vote. It is incumbent upon individual citizens to tell their state representatives that it is not the desire of the people to circumvent the constitutional process for electing our president.

Failure to stop a national popular vote could take generations to reverse.

Andrew Morgan is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Army, a senior executive within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and a retired U.S. Navy captain. He received his MBA from George Washington University and master’s from National Defense University.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

History Repeats Itself: Democrats Are Using Tactics of the Marxists of 1917 in Russia to Steal 2020 Election

Reported By Jim Hoft | Published December 22, 2020 at 7:19am

Once again we are republishing this analysis by John L Kachelman, Jr. We first published this piece back in October before the election.

2020 the “Perfect Storm” facing our Republic— All three branches of our Government are in peril

Historical Discovery…An election in 1917 forecast the election in 2020! Here are the elements from 103 years ago!

Years of preparatory work were spent in misleading and mis-directional propaganda
Contested voting results marred the election’s finality and ultimately its dismissal
Claims that the poor were going to be disenfranchised of their votes
The scheduled voting was extended by two months
Division, violence, slander and libel were widespread
A delusional/cunning/conniving campaign made unrealistic promises to win the population
Anger and mob violence were deliberately stirred against “privilege,” possessions, and status
Deceptive claims persuaded the “majority” they were robbed of their electoral victory
Inevitable civil war was sparked at the election’s end because Lenin’s group failed to win the majority
The dissolution of the old State and a “transformation” of the new system was promised to lead to true socialism but it brought history’s worst and longest ruling tyrant

And here is how it happened…

Here is a basic reminder of your 9^th Grade American Civics materials…The Founding Fathers of our Republic designed a system of governing to prevent the evils inherent in the onerous governing systems of Europe. The Republic was to be governed in a way that the majority would have a say BUT safeguarded against a rogue majority controlling the nation. A deliberate system of “checks and balances” was wisely incorporated against evil efforts to seize national control.

The ultimate safeguard was the separation of the State’s governing into three distinct bodies. While each would have an impact upon the others, that impact was deliberately limited. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Republic were designed to be independent but function with unity to guide the nation, preserve freedoms, and guard the human rights that are often disenfranchised by evil systems and philosophies. One of the greatest feats of our Republic is the exercise of individualism when these three branches of governing are properly functioning.

However, at this point in our nation’s historical narrative the “perfect storm” threatens ALL THREE of these safeguards of our Republic. And my disconcerting observation is that many prance and dance around with a Pollyannish attitude denying the reality of our current situation. The prevailing cultural concern is as absurd as the attitude of one busily rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic!

The assault on the EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The resistance has been hard at work even prior to President Trump’s inauguration. Attempts to nullify the electoral process have been constant. The evil agenda was visible. Our President has suffered evil resistance of historic proportions. The basic cause is his commitment to the U.S. Constitution. It is the unchanging Constitution that provides the legal governing making the USA an exceptional nation of individuals. This fixed and knowable Constitution gives our nation the strength and energy envied by the world and loathed by tyranny. )The Resistance/DEMS/BLM/ANTIFA demand an activist Court that will change our Republic’s basic foundational principles.)

The stated position of the resistance has been loud and long—they have robbed President Trump of his first four years as President. They have dared to present the most ridiculous reasons for his disqualification and removal. They have manipulated, deceived and extorted support for their evil agenda. They have ignited violence that has divided and destroyed the civility of the USA. Their evil purpose was to achieve the political purge of a duly elected President of the United States of America. Our President has been nominated for multiple Nobel Peace Prizes for his exceptional ability to broker true peace between Middle Eastern nations. But the resistance shrugs forgetting they excitedly embraced the Peace Prize awarded to Obama which is admitted now as an award for nothing! The resistance’s political maneuvering and evil mission is well documented.

Those of the resistance are described by inspiration. Their conniving and cunning evil is a constant action seeking to destroy legitimate order. Psalm 36:4, “He plans wickedness upon his bed; He sets himself on a path that is not good; He does not despise evil.” (See also Ecclesiastes 10:20)

Even the classics describe the reality of this evil. From Stevenson’s pen we remember the confession that describes those seeking to nullify the legality of President Trump’s election. Like the pained soul of Henry Jekyll the resistance can confess, “I lost my identity beyond redemption…had I risked the experiment while under the empire of generous or pious aspirations, all must have been otherwise, and from these agonies of death and birth, I had come forth an angel instead of a fiend…At that time my virtue slumbered; my evil, kept awake by ambition, was alert and swift to seize the occasion.” Perhaps the most troubling reference that Stevenson’s pen gives to the resistance character states, “O my poor old Harry Jekyll, if ever I read Satan’s signature upon a face, it is on that of your new friend.”

Inspiration and the Classics unite in describing today’s controlling evil that occupies every thought of the Progressive/Liberal/BLM/ANTIFA “resistance” as “Satan’s signature upon a face.”

This is the first element of today’s “Perfect Storm.” There are two more elements…

The assault upon the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

It is the Legislative Branch of our Republic’s government that involves the citizenry in the governing process. The population’s vote is a significant and treasured freedom. That vote expresses the desires of each State of the Union and is recorded by the Electoral College so that a free election is not controlled by a militant mob. The Founding Fathers wisely saw the potential of a militant group manipulating and coercing control. The establishment of the Electoral College was a masterful move safeguarding the Republic’s freedoms. By this method the most populous States are equal with the least populous—true equality.

The 2020 General Election is recognized as a critical point in our nation’s history. It can be said that every election is critical and previous elections have suffered the militancy of Progressives/Liberals attempting to undermine the Constitutional foundation of our nation. These past challenges failed because the general population was aware of the evil being campaigned and were educated regarding the safeguards of our Constitution. But the context has dramatically changed for the 2020 General Election. In this current election the Constitutional safeguards are condemned and the population is ignorant of just how fragile individual freedom is. It appears that many have been groomed and are eager to believe the Progressive/Liberal/Democratic lies and embrace anarchy. This is not a new situation. History is amazing as it details how the past continues to explain the present.

Consider the Russian Revolution. I offer just a scant discussion on Lenin’s role in this aspect of Russian politics. Hopefully I will have opportunity to offer a more complete discussion. Consider the first “free election” that Russia experienced. It was held in October or November 1917 (the month depends upon which calendar you consult). Lenin promised a “free” election where all votes would be equal and each citizen would be heard. The election was scheduled and a number of political parties provided the voters a choice. Among the many parties were two dominating parties: the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (Lenin’s Bolsheviks).

The propaganda fueling this election is intriguing. Lenin had confidence that his party would be an overwhelming victor. He was convinced that his pamphleteering during his exile was persuasive. He was convinced that only he knew best what the poor citizens needed for happiness in life. Lenin had devised a governing system by which the State would help the poor citizen to have free health care, free food, personal land ownership, and the erasure of all class “privileges” by redistributing wealth/financial resources/personal property. Under Lenin’s control there would be no more denial of personal rights, no more prejudice of persons, and no more unjust financial levels. All would be totally “equal” IF Lenin’s perfect Revolutionary State was allowed to transform into the Marxist utopia.

Here is where history becomes instructive regarding the Legislative Body of the State.

When the Tsar abdicated, the Russian Provisional Government was formed. Its purpose was to organize the free elections for the Russian Constituent Assembly. The provisional government lasted only eight months and was replaced by the Bolsheviks. A significant footnote to this period is that the Provisional Government was unable to make decisive policy decisions due to political factionalism and a breakdown of state structures. The anarchy fomented by Lenin and the Bolsheviks rendered a civil governing impossible. Whatever legislative bills were presented were instantly killed by opposition. Revolutionary unrest fueled violence. This was a deliberate design of non-cooperation and pure resistance! The deliberate campaign for divisiveness and refusal to perform governing duties is a sobering similarity to the resistance in modern day American politics. Lenin’s free election was conducted but here are some troubling facts from its history:

1) The election was designed to be held on specific dates BUT some argued that the peasants in the outlying territory needed more time to get their votes counted. So, the ballot counting was extended in some places by TWO MONTHS!

Advertisement – story continues below

2) Throughout the 1917 campaign Lenin argued that the citizens deserved a government that represented “the proletariat’s interests” because, in his estimation, all other governments represented the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” Lenin argued that the rich would never give up their “privileges” and so the soviets would need to seize power by violence. Lenin’s propaganda fueled the division that would destroy the Russian nation. He urged violence nurtured by envy and jealousy arguing that some had “privileged status” that others did not and this great “inequity” could only be removed with a violent overthrow.

3) Even though the first free election included a number of different political parties, Lenin was confident that his Bolsheviks would win. That did not happen. The final tabulation exposed Lenin as suffering defeat and his Bolsheviks only garnered 23.26% of the vote. The Socialist-Revolutionaries emerged with 37.61% of the vote. Lenin was unhappy and contested the results! Lenin refused to concede protesting the legitimacy of the election.

4) The objective of the resistance was a one-party government and an absolute silencing of opposition. “It is the duty of the revolution to put an end to compromise, and to put an end to compromise means taking the path of socialist revolution” Lenin, Speech On The Agrarian Question November 14 (1917).

Carefully consider how Lenin embraced the freedom of voting while masterfully disguising his evil objective of silencing the opposition and developing a one-party ruling government.

After the election results were announced, Lenin stood and revealed the coup. The results were called flawed. Those in opposition were eventually murdered. Lenin instituted his famous “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Lenin said this was the best course for the average citizen and this dictatorship would dissolve when all privileged distinctions were erased, all wealth inequities removed, and all land ownership seized. And the Russian population permitted this dictatorship to exist!

When applied to the 2020 General Election in the USA, this historical anecdote should sound national alarms! The very concepts that Lenin used to nullify the free election of Russia in 1917 are being used in today’s election. In fact, some of the very words and phrases that were used by Lenin are parroted by the Democratic Progressives today and characterize the membership of Democratic Party in the USA!

When the election process of our governing Constitution is compromised and dismissed as archaic and inapplicable THEN our nation has lost the compass for safely navigating the treacherous existence in this world.

The assault upon the JUDICIAL BRANCH

History reminds its students that the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices were forever changed in 1987 with Joe Biden’s Judiciary’s malevolent confirmation hearing of Judge Robert Bork. Biden was campaigning to be the nomination of the Democratic Presidential candidate (which he would lose to Dukakis because of Biden’s plagiarism). In 1987 the custom was for such hearings to last two days or less. Under Biden’s chairmanship Bork’s hearing was weaponized and lasted TWELVE days. Such a reprehensible action has earned its own idiom in American language—“so and so was ‘Borked’.”

The 1987 Democratic Party’s politicizing and weaponizing the confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court appointments opened the floodgates for the most contentious events in the governing of the United States of America. One only needs to go back to the recent hearings to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. The personal slander, insidious innuendos, manufactured complaints and a host of other evil actions have become accepted political weapons (Or as Speaker Pelosi remarked, “arrows in our quiver”). In past times it was customary that the sitting President was respected and his nominations were accorded with approval, even if the conservatives knew they were approving a Progressive/Liberal who despised the literalist view of the U.S. Constitution they voted for the confirmation. But now there is a horrid specter of divisiveness and vindictiveness enveloping the process.

The General Election of 2020 spotlights the tragic devolving of the status of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is suggested by some, with validity, that the Supreme Court is no longer focused upon apolitical justice but has assumed an active role in establishing law that the U.S. Constitution reserves only for the Legislative Branch.

The Democrats/Progressives/Liberals have announced their intent to “pack” the Supreme Court with Justices who disrespect the U.S. Constitution. They want a left-leaning Court that will sanction the total dismemberment of the constitutional statutes that made America a great nation. The far-left Daily Kos cautioned Republicans that a “future government controlled by Democrats is likely to pursue — court-packing — as the best way to rebuff a conservative Court majority viewed as illegitimate.” Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told voters during an October 2018 campaign event that Democrats should “pack the Supreme Court of the United States of America” after taking the House, Senate, and Presidency. Leading Democrats also warned that if the justices issue a pro-Second Amendment ruling, and if Democrats win the White House and the Senate in 2020, then they will fundamentally remake the High Court.

Former President Franklin Roosevelt issued this same threat in the 1930s after facing legal obstacles with his New Deal and subsequently “threatened to expand the Court by six seats for a new total of 15 justices so that he could get the rulings he wanted.” The American people, however, rejected his threat, leading to massive Republican victories in the 1938 midterm elections.

Former Democrat presidential candidates Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and now vice-presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) announced that they were open to reshaping the court. “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris said, according to Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

During the summer of 2020 several major progressive groups, including Take Back The Court, Demand Justice, Progressive Change Institute, and the Sunrise Movement, signed a letter declaring their support for increasing the number of justices by “at least” two seats. The resistance wrote in part: “The fastest, most effective way to make the court representative of all Americans is to enact legislation increasing the size of the Court by at least two seats, and to quickly fill those seats with justices who will safeguard our democracy.” Note: In the context of this reference it is best to remember Lenin’s manipulative ploy that his “free” election would best represent “all Russians”?

In March 2019, President Trump astutely dismissed mounting calls from his Democratic opponents to pack the Supreme Court. “The only reason they’re doing that is they want to try and catch up, so if they can’t catch up through the ballot box by winning an election, they want to try doing it in a different way,” he added.

The late Justice Ginsburg balked at the proposition of packing the Supreme Court. “It would make the Court look partisan,” the late justice told National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg last year.

The Judicial Branch of the government is to interpret laws respecting the United States Constitution’s limits. Once this unbiased governing is compromised, there is no lawful regulations for civility in our nation.

Concluding Thoughts…

This is where the United States of America is positioned as the General Election of November 2020 nears. A discord and division prevail that has never existed. This violence has been stoked with bitterness. The Progressives/Democratic Party/BLM/ANTIFA assure us that regardless of the election there will be violence. We are being conditioned to think that electoral results will take weeks or months to be validated and even then, they will be challenged. The vitriol marking the battleground is undeniable. Following Lenin’s example in 1917 the Democrats have been told never to concede. The results are already announced, “Furious Democrats are considering total war — profound changes to two branches of government, and even adding stars to the flag (i.e. adding the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as States thus insuring Democrats have two solid additions to their column) — if Republicans jam through a Supreme Court nominee then lose control of the Senate.”

As the National Election of 2020 approaches we read of violence, destruction and carnage in the public sphere…Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent death sparked a political firestorm, as Republicans prepare for a contentious, pre-election confirmation showdown and some Democrats threaten to, quite literally, burn the country down.

The ”Perfect Storm” facing the Republic of the United States of America has formed and threatens the three pillars of our civility.

After Lenin’s Bolsheviks permitted a “free election” they moved quickly to strangle freedoms. Lenin’s opinion of the poor proletariat having the right to vote for individual choices morphed into a ruling class identified as the “Politburo.” The first Politburo consisted of: Lenin, Trotsky, Krestinsky, Kamenev, and Stalin. Lenin died. Trotsky was exiled to Mexico and was murdered. Krestinsky and Kamenev were assassinated. That left Stalin. Stalin manipulated the bureaucratic apparatus and seized power. By the 1930s, Stalin had transformed the Politburo into the supreme executive and legislative body of the Communist party and the Soviet government. Stalin was in command of its membership, decisions, and debates. The party congress now not only did not elect the politburo, but its own membership was fully controlled by the politburo. Not only had Lenin’s vision of a one-party political government been achieved but now it became a one-man political government! Individualism had been erased. The individual had ceased to exist and all had become “the State.”

The ”Perfect Storm” in Russia’s history resulted in the totalitarian reign of Stalin’s terror. Such is the conclusion of Russia’s first free election.

What will YOU do regarding the “Perfect Storm” in which our Republic is now struggling?

Please read the historical documentation available and you will realize
this is not a conspiracy theory but a historical constant!

Jim Hoft

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Blue States Band Together in Open Attack on Constitution: Aim To Completely Destroy Electoral College

Reported By Benjamin Arie | Published March 4, 2019 at 2:39pm | Modified March 5, 2019 at 9:20am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/blue-states-band-together-open-attack-constitution-aim-completely-destroy-electoral-college/

Voices should be heard even if they aren’t able to scream the loudest.

Liberals claim to believe in “equality” and standing up for the “little guy” in the face of bullies, but a movement gaining steam in blue states is putting that in doubt. Frustrated that they didn’t win in 2016, the left has a new plan: Sidestep the Constitution and effectively get rid of the Electoral College.

Colorado is the latest state to jump on board. Last week, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis announced that he would sign a bill which basically re-writes the electoral process, and could pave the way to letting big cities dominate every future presidential election.

The liberal called the Electoral College an “undemocratic relic,” apparently believing that he knows better than the Founding Fathers. “I’ve long supported electing the president by who gets the most votes,” Polis declared on Feb. 24, according to The Hill.

That plan would force Colorado’s electors — the people who actually cast the official votes for president — to side with whichever candidate wins the national popular vote, no matter what. By changing the regulations at the state level but still using puppet electors, liberals would avoid amending the Constitution to get their way.

“It’s a way to move towards direct election of the president,” Polis said.

At first glance, it’s no big deal. Democracy means that people vote and the person with the most votes wins, right?

The problem, of course, is that America was founded as a republic for reason — and it’s quickly evident just how dangerous it could be to bypass the Electoral College.

The United States is a huge and diverse country. The whims and demands of voters in Manhattan are drastically different from the concerns of rural farmers in Iowa — yet the voices of those smaller locations are just as important, especially when you realize that huge percentages of our food and supplies come from the heartland.

The entire purpose of having state and local governments is that a far-off central government can’t bully the rest of the country, but that’s exactly what would happen if the Electoral College were abandoned.

A presidential candidate would only need to win a handful of big cities such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, completely ignoring the concerns of the interior of the vast nation. The voices of millions of Americans who live outside of coastal population centers would be ignored.

Ironically, the plan could also mean that the votes of Colorado’s own citizens don’t really count, because they would be negated if they don’t match the whims of the popular vote. As one Colorado county commissioner rightly pointed out, “we do not support the National Popular Vote, which allows California and New York to decide Colorado’s votes for President.”

But the Rocky Mountain State isn’t alone. An eye-opening number of other states are joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all moving toward similar legislation.

“The states making up the compact, which already includes New York, Illinois and all the New England states except for New Hampshire, would commit to awarding their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the results in the Electoral College,” The Hill explained.

That Interstate Compact is not likely to have enough support to make a difference in the 2020 election, but it could play a major role in subsequent votes unless conservatives stand up and stop it. The United States of America was founded on the separation of power, not a no-holds-barred popularity contest.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” it’s been said.

Exactly right.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie

Contributor, Commentary

Summary

Liberal Gun Control Arguments SHUT DOWN With 1 EPIC Meme

By: Wilmot Proviso on June 23, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/gun-control-shut-down/

In the social media gun control wars of 2016, the great liberal argument has been that the Second Amendment was designed by founding fathers who simply couldn’t foresee a gun like the AR-15 being invented.

Never mind, of course, that the AR-15 wasn’t used in the Orlando terrorist shooting, or the fact that Democrats and liberals know so little about guns that they can barely talk about them without making a serious mistake.

There’s also the fact that they’re discounting that the founding fathers didn’t put it that way when they wrote the Second Amendment, as a new meme pointed out.

Exactly:

musket meme eric

The Second Amendment does not read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless the gun looks really scary and fires bullets that aren’t musket balls, and you can load more than one bullet at a time, and — really, why do you need a gun? Let’s pass some gun control laws.”

The Second Amendment wasn’t just an afterthought for the founding fathers. It was one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights — the one amendment that would make sure all of the others weren’t violated.

The founders weren’t ignorant men, either. They studied military history and knew the pace of progress. They knew that more advanced firearms were coming, and they hoped that they were writing a document for a nation that would survive hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

To say that they hadn’t seen weapons like the AR-15 coming is to dramatically underestimate their foresight.

And yet, nobody challenges the Bill of Rights on any of the other counts. Free speech is so much freer in 2016 than it was in the 1700s, but most of us don’t believe it’s time to do away with the First Amendment.

So, as this meme demonstrates — if you want to complain about the Second Amendment not being designed for modern weapons, get off the computer and write me out a letter. Or, better yet, stop complaining.

Hey Leftist true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Would We Have Our ‘American Freedoms’ Without Christianity?

By Daniel Mann March 21, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/freedom-democracy-and-secularism

One skeptic wrote, “The only responsible way to make law is to ignore religion, because it would be impossible to please everyone.”

Well, it is impossible to “please everyone,” no matter what law is passed.

However, our laws and values cannot be religion-free; they cannot be based on scientifically proven facts. This notion is entirely mistaken. Science can only tell us what is, not what should be. Therefore, our laws can never be free from anyone’s values and/or religious beliefs.

Another equally erroneous assumption is that the First Amendment to our Constitution prohibits public religious reasoning or expression. A mere look at the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776; beginning of the second paragraph) should dispel this notion:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Our Founding Fathers recognized that our “unalienable Rights” did not originate from the passing fads and whims of governments, which could easily take back the “rights” it had granted, but upon our unchanging and merciful God who created us in His image. He therefore retains a loving interest in our welfare, punishing anyone who violates it.

Not surprisingly, these same sentiments are reflected in the speeches and writings of our Founding Fathers. For most of them, Christianity wasn’t an optional appendage. It had to be part of the solid foundation of the new republic. In God of Liberty, historian Thomas S. Kidd writes:

“Whether evangelical or rationalist, most Patriots assumed that Christianity would, in some sense, be the cornerstone for the preservation of the new American Republic.”

In his 1796 Farewell Address, the beloved George Washington reiterated these broadly accepted sentiments:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars…The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

These sentiments were broadly held. Kidd writes,

“Through the era of the Civil War most Americans would continue to believe that the Christian religion should assist government in lifting people’s moral dispositions, so that they might contribute positively to the freedom of the Republic. Even the skeptical Thomas Jefferson believed that Christianity, in it original purity, ‘is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty.’”

What a contrast to the assertions of the New Atheists that Christianity destroys everything it touches.

Our second president, John Adams, who became a Unitarian, expressed a similar sentiment in a letter to his cousin Samuel:

“All projects of government, founded in the supposition or expectation of extraordinary degrees of virtue [apart from Christianity], are evidently chimerical.”

These weren’t just the sentiments of American patriots. The Frenchman, deist and lapsed Catholic, Alexis de Tocqueville, extensively traveled the States, starting in 1831, endeavoring to investigate the stability and monumental success of this new republic. In Democracy in America, he wrote, “The religious atmosphere was the first thing that struck me on arrival in the United States.” While the French Revolution had taken out its vengeance on the clergy, killing more than a hundred priests, the American Revolution embraced the Christian faith. According to Kidd, Tocqueville observed,

“The partnership of religion and liberty lay at the heart of America’s political success. To Tocqueville, the American’s Christian ethos kept democracy’s worst features in check…Freedom by itself would inexorably degenerate into rabid selfishness, but religion nurtured the purposefulness of freedom. In the American model, according to Tocqueville, ‘freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its rights.’”

This position is diametrically opposed to today’s secularists who want to silence and marginalize religious expressions and symbols and to reserve the public sphere for their stealth religion of secularism – moral relativism, multiculturalism, and religious pluralism. In contrast to this,

“Tocqueville asserted that more than any other political systems, egalitarian democracies needed the ballast of religion. Equality of condition and opportunity, which was more evident in America than anywhere else in the world tended ‘to isolate men from each other so that each thinks only of himself.’ People in an egalitarian democracy naturally become consumed with selfish lusts and desires, exhibiting a greater willingness to harm those who stood in the way of their advancement. Religion, teaching the obligation of love toward God and man, created motivations essential to healthy democracy.”

Why is religion viewed oppositely today? Perhaps, as Tocqueville had suggested, Americans have become so “consumed with selfish lusts and desires” that the teachings of the Bible are now viewed with contempt and as an impediment to our immediate self-satisfaction? Although among the Founding Fathers, there were many who were either rationalists or deists, they were positively disposed to the Christian faith:

“Tocqueville manifested a view of religion not unlike that of several prominent founding fathers, including Jefferson…maintaining that it was essential for the masses to keep believing in Christianity—or at least in good and evil—and in the eternal rewards in the afterlife.”

It would be wrong to assume that the separation of church and state reflected any disdain towards religion. Instead, it had been advanced by the majority of evangelicals who had been marginalized and even imprisoned by a state-supported religion. They wanted, above all else, the freedom to practice their religion without any interference from the state. Disestablishment of religion from the state would ensure this:

“Disestablishment hardly reflected government hostility to religion, however. Under the canopy of disestablishment and religious freedom, the churches in America flourished in astounding ways. Whatever Jefferson meant by his ‘wall of separation,’ hardly anyone across the religious spectrum in America believed that separation should entail government antagonism toward religion or the elimination of religious rhetoric or symbols from the political sphere. Whatever their personal convictions about religion, Patriots typically believed that virtue sustained a republic and that religion was the most common resource that trained people in virtue.”

While the secularism of yesterday endeavored to ensure the vitality of religion and its continual impact upon the public domain, the “secularism” of today is the very opposite. It robustly exercises religious viewpoint discrimination in favor of protecting its own politically correct orthodoxy.

This is a secularism that seems to want to protect our “selfish lusts and desires,” at the expense of religious freedom. Tocqueville and the Founding Fathers saw in Christianity the necessary counter-balance to this self-centered freedom. We will see how it all plays out. Death of a nation Die true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

QUESTION: Would Our Founders Be Considered ‘Extremists’ Today?

by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge Published on February 9, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/02/question-founders-considered-extremists-today

“Do you think that the mainstream media would love our Founding Fathers if they were here today?”

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God as a Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240 years ago.

My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents. Tree of Liberty 03

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

By LU Staff on July 25, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/07/25/connecticut-dems-dump-thomas-jefferson-urge-rest-of-u-s-to-follow-suit

The Connecticut Democratic Party has officially dumped both Thomas Jefferson’s and Andrew Jackson’s names from its annual fundraising dinner due to their ties to slavery. The move was made in response to demands from the state’s chapter of the NAACP.

Each fall, the state party holds a Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey dinner to raise money for the party. Similar Jefferson-Jackson dinners are held by Democrats around the country (the Bailey name is peculiar to Connecticut).

But now the first two names are gone, voted out unanimously by the party’s state board in just a few minutes with almost no discussion, according to the Hartford Courant.

“As members of the Democratic Party, we are proud of our history as the party of inclusion. Democrats have led the way on civil rights, LGBT equality and equal rights for women,” the board’s resolution declared. “It is only fitting that the name of the party’s most visible annual event reflects our dedication to diversity and forward-looking vision.”

A replacement name will be chosen later.

Jefferson is well-known to most Americans for writing the Declaration of Independence, serving as America’s third president, championing religious freedom, and being one of the nation’s leading intellectuals in its early years. He was also a key figure in the genesis of the Democratic-Republican party, which evolved into the modern Democratic Party, so throughout history Democrats have been happy to claim him as their own.

Now, though, Democrats are souring on Jefferson due to his position as a slaveholder, as well as the belief that he fathered children with slave Sally Hemmings.

Andrew Jackson is even more vilified today. While his presidency was a key point in the rise of the “common man” as a major force in American politics, Jackson was also a slaveholder, and his policies toward American Indians have been characterized by some as genocidal.

Calls to change the name grew after the massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina last month.

Party chairman Nick Balletto said he hoped the rest of the country would join Connecticut in rejecting Jefferson’s legacy.

“I wasn’t looking to be a trailblazer or set off a trend that’s going to affect the rest of the country,” Balletto told the Connecticut Post. “Hopefully, they’ll follow suit when they see it’s the right thing to do.” Balletto added that the name simply had to go, because some people were offended by it. “When something offends someone, it’s beyond being politically correct,” Balletto said. “It just causes a need for change.” “You can’t change history, but you don’t have to honor it.”

This report, by Blake Neff, was cross-posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Constitutional “Shall Not’s” of Congress

Written by Bethany Blankley

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/the-constitutional-shall-nots-of-congress

Universal human rights are determined by government restraint. In what areas of human life should the government not be involved? What areas of life must the government not regulate, not restrain, not limit, not oversee, not implement, not subsidize, not legalize or make illegal? Interestingly, the first five words of the Bill of Rights state what Congress cannot do: “Congress shall make no law… .” Even more telling– the first ten amendments, with perhaps The Sixth as the exception, all define what the government cannot do:

First: “Shall make no law … prohibiting … abridging,
Second: “Shall not be infringed”
Third: “No soldier shall … without the consent …”
Fourth: “Shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue …”
Fifth: “No person shall be held … nor shall any person be subject …”
Seventh: “Shall be preserved … No fact … shall be otherwise reexamined …”
Eighth: “Shall not be required … Nor excessive … imposed, nor … punishments inflicted”
Ninth: “shall not be construed to deny or disparage”
Tenth: “Not delegated … nor prohibited.”

The third, fifth, eighth, and tenth amendments don’t state “rights;” they state what authority the government does not have. In effect, limits on government are universal human rights. The Constitution outlines specific areas of human life that are off-limits to government. This suggests that there are certain aspects of human life which are fundamentally free.

The Constitution did not outline rights or prohibitions defined by a government that could later redefine them. It outlined rules to be followed by a self-ruling people in addition to separating and balancing political authority among judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.

Despite the limits the Founders enumerated in the Constitution, their limits are still limited in their ability to constrain government overreach. Matters of conscience, especially as they relate to the First Amendment, dictate certain situations when citizens decide to not follow and/or disobey unjust laws. Interestingly, dissent in the form of collective actions of conscience (refusing to pay taxes, boycotting specific products, and armed resistance) among approximately one third of American colonists who fought for independence.

The Constitution was the result of a point in time that the Founding Fathers and Framers identified of a line they could not cross. They could not comply in good conscience– it would be immoral to comply– with the laws of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Christians joined them, citing New Testament directives, identifying that they also must only “obey God rather than men.”

They recognized they could not selectively disobey certain laws because the government itself could not be obeyed. They needed a new government. Rebellion and resistance were required because the ruling authorities had rebelled against God. The government had not only violated basic principles of justice but also had squandered God-given human rights, rendering itself illegitimate.

Thomas Jefferson asserted:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long Established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, Accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evidences a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Jefferson also said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The Shall Nots were imperative to the Founders– they wanted to ensure that if Congress violated them the people had just cause to rebel.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Kansas Governor Brownback Issues Order Protecting Beliefs of Clergy About Same-Sex “Marriage”

Written by Warren Mass, Friday, 10 July 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21236-kansas-gov-brownback-issues-order-protecting-beliefs-of-clergy-about-same-sex-marriage

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued an executive order on July 7 that prohibits the state government from taking any action against any individual clergy, religious leader, or religious organization that “acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” The governor said his order protects “Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violate their sincerely and deeply held beliefs.”

Brownback issued the executive order, entitled “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” in response to last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, mandating recognition of same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states. In the order, he cited the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Section Seven of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (which he signed in 2013), all of which protect the religious liberty of Kansans. He quoted from the latter, which provides that state government shall not “substantially burden a person’s civil right to exercise of religion.”

&amp;lt;a href=’http://67.227.136.223/~adserve/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a9664042&amp;amp;amp;cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE’ target=’_blank’&amp;gt;&amp;lt;img src=’http://67.227.136.223/~adserve/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=334&amp;amp;cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&amp;amp;n=a9664042′ border=’0′ alt=” /&gt;&lt; /a&gt;

Building on that legal foundation, Brown noted that “the recent imposition of same sex marriage by the United States Supreme Court poses potential infringements on the civil right of religious liberty” and that “government actions and laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.”

Getting down to specifics, Brownback ordered:

The State Government shall not take any discriminatory action against any individual clergy or religious leader on the basis that such individual declines or will decline to perform, solemnize, or facilitate any marriage, based upon or consistent with the individual’s sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction

The four Catholic bishops in Kansas issued a joint statement urging state officials to make the enactment of new legal protections for those who are opposed in conscience to same-sex marriage a top priority in coming months. The bishops praised Brownback’s order and said in a statement: “Generations of Americans have taken freedom of conscience for granted. We, sadly, do not have that luxury anymore.”

Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently issued a similar memo to all agency heads in his state, granting state employees who object on moral grounds to same-sex marriage some protection against the ruling. Abbott’s memo stated: “All state agency heads should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief.”

While orders such as Brownback’s and Abbott’s mitigate some of the most harmful effects of the Supreme Court’s overreaching decision on same-sex “marriage” — about which Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State” — they fall far short of other remedies available to the states. One such remedy is nullification, a little-used technique in recent history, but a viable one nevertheless. As Joe Wolverton noted in a recent article for The New American on the prospect of states using nullification to resist the application of Obergefell v. Hodges within their borders:

Nullification, whether through active acts passed by the legislatures or the simple refusal to obey unconstitutional directives, is the “rightful remedy” for the ill of federal usurpation of authority. Americans committed to the Constitution must walk the fences separating the federal and state governments and they must keep the former from crossing into the territory of the latter.

Wolverton cited no less an authority on the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson to support the legitimacy of nullification, quoting from the Founding Father’s statement in the Kentucky Resolutions:

That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Though nullification is a valid, constitutional option, no state has thus far made an attempt to apply the principal to Obergefell v. Hodges. Granted, it has been only a few weeks since the decision was made, and such matters take time. However, that is all the more reason why serious discussions to consider that possibility should now be taking place.

One of the strongest statements suggesting nullification came from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who said on Newsmax TV’s The Steve Malzberg Show shortly before the High Court handed down its decision that the states should ignore any Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. “A ruling by the Supreme Court is nothing but an opinion if the legislative branch and the executive branch do not enforce it,” said DeLay. “Not only that, if the states would just invoke the 10th Amendment and assert their sovereignty, they can defy a ruling by the Supreme Court. It’s in the Constitution. We can tell the court what cases they can hear.”

What DeLay described regarding telling the federal courts which cases they can hear is governed not by the 10th Amendment, which protects the sovereignty of the states, but by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to make exceptions to and regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Former Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) attempted to utilize this power when he introduced his We the People Act in 2004 and 2009. The bill, if it had passed, would have removed jurisdiction of federal courts from cases involving the establishment of religion, sexual orientation, abortion, and marriage.

Invoking such power made more practical sense when DeLay mentioned it prior to Obergefell v. Hodges being decided. Since the court has now ruled, it would be difficult to rescind its jurisdiction to decide on marriage cases retroactively. However it is not too late to use the other tool that DeLay recommended, the 10th Amendment, to which Justice Alito alluded when he said, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”

If the decision should be decided by the states, then the states must declare that the power usurped by the Supreme Court in rendering that decision is null.

Related articles:

Political Leaders Voice Discontent With Supreme Court Marriage Ruling

Catholic Leaders Vow to Stand Against Contraception Mandate, Same-sex Marriage

Texas AG: “Reach of Court’s Opinion Stops at the Door of the First Amendment”

Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification

Rome: Hundreds of Thousands Protest Against Same-sex Unions

Marriage Can’t Be Redefined

Sen. Lee and Rep. Labrador Propose Protection for Religious Liberty

Southern Baptist Leader: Prepare for Civil Disobedience Over Gay Marriage Ruling

As Gov. of Texas, Would Abbott Continue to Stand for States’ Rights?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Christian Foundations of America

Posted on December 10, 2014 by Tamara Jackson

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/christian-foundations-america/

christian-foundations-of-america Though the Left and President Obama would have you believe that we are NOT a Christian nation and were NOT founded on Judeo-Christian principles, they don’t have an historical leg to stand on.
Check it out:

Christian Foundations of America

by Troy Lacey on November 25, 2014

URL of the Original Site: https://answersingenesis.org/culture/america/christian-foundations-of-america/

On September 6, 1620, a group of courageous pilgrims set sail in the Mayflower from Plymouth, England, bound for the New World with the primary purpose of establishing a colony where they could freely practice their religious beliefs. They anchored in Provincetown Harbor of Cape Cod on November 21, 1620, and after exploring the cape, they settled on the coast at Plymouth (in present-day Massachusetts).1 On the day they anchored, they wrote and signed a compact declaring their purpose and how their civil government would function. The modernized text of the main body of the 1620 Mayflower Compact reads as follows:

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor 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 our selves together into a civil body politic, 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.2

: The Mayflower Compact was the first governing document of Plymouth Colony. It was drafted by the Pilgrims who crossed the Atlantic aboard the Mayflower, seeking religious freedom. It was signed on November 11, 1620 (OS) in what is now Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mayflowercomp.jpg.

It was clear from the Compact that their faith played an extremely important part of their lives, and that they desired to establish and spread the Christian faith in their new homeland. The Pilgrims recognized that they needed to occasionally set aside days for commemorating the Providence of God. In 1668, the Plymouth Colony Court decreed the following:

Taking notice of the goodness of God to us in the continuance of our civil and religious liberties, the general health that we have enjoyed, and that it has pleased God in some comfortable measure to bless us in the fruits of the earth . . . do propose unto the several congregations of this government, that the 25th day of November next, which will be the fourth day of the week, to be kept as a solemn day of thanksgiving.3

It is evident that Christianity significantly influenced every aspect of colonial life and was at the heart of many of the laws which were to govern colonial and later American society. The Charter of Rhode Island in 1663 makes this point clear as seen in this excerpt:

And whereas, in their humble address, they have freely declared, that it is much on their hearts (if they may be permitted) to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained, and that among our English subjects, with a full liberty in religious concernments and that true piety rightly grounded upon gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty. Now, know ye, that we, being willing to encourage the hopeful undertaking of our said loyal and loving subjects, and to secure them in the free exercise and enjoyment of all their civil and religious rights, appertaining to them, as our loving subjects and to preserve unto them that liberty, in the true Christian faith and worship of God, which they have sought with so much travail, and with peaceable minds, and loyal subjection to our royal progenitors and ourselves, to enjoy.4

These early Pilgrims and American colonists plainly stated that Christianity was good for ordering the civic structure, maintaining equitable law, preserving civil and religious liberties, and beneficial (indeed foundational) for public morality. Far from compartmentalizing society into secular duties and religious responsibilities, the Pilgrims and other early colonists recognized that for a government of any kind (colony, state, or federal) to function properly and flourish, there needed to be a Christian moral backbone to the laws which regulated society. These colonial founders recognized that it was the Christian morality behind the laws, not the laws themselves, which would order and preserve society.

For example the 1778 South Carolina State Constitution in Article 38 declares the following:

1st. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.

2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.

3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion

4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.

5th. That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.5

Christianity played a vital role in everyday life and the political direction of the Colonies and the early United States.These brief quotes of documents instrumental to the founding of America are just a few of the many on record. They plainly testify that America was founded on Christian principles—not just some vague Deism—and indeed Christianity played a vital role in everyday life and the political direction of the Colonies and the early United States.

But we now live in an American society which is suppressing the name of God in any public arena, removing the 10 Commandments from courthouses, forcing the removal of nativity scenes from public places (and even lawsuits brought against privately-owned nativity scenes), and even trying to suppress what Christian ministers can say in the pulpits of their own churches. This is not the freedom of religion that is talked about in every state’s constitution and the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Prohibition of religious worship in private and public settings would have been the furthest thing from the minds of the Pilgrims and other early colonists. Indeed, the First Amendment to the US Constitution was patterned after the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 section 16:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.6

It is ironic that in the name of tolerance and equity, we have not only moved away from what the founders of this country intended, but we have completely turned 180 degrees. As we have detailed in recent blog posts and articles, the US government is now trying to force ministers to violate their Christian convictions and conscience and make them perform homosexual marriages, hire people who may be opposed to and even hostile to their religion, and provide abortifacients to employees against the dictates of their faith. These actions directly violate the letter and intent of the First Amendment. Buttressed by revisionist history, modern America has reinterpreted the Christian foundation upon which this country was built.

Footnotes

The Pilgrims still utilized the Julian calendar, so the date of their anchoring and signing of the Compact was November 11 under that calendar, and the day they set sail would have been September 16.See all footnotes
“The Mayflower Compact,” Pilgrim Hall Museum, accessed November 19, 2014, http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/mayflower_compact_text.htm. Although the original document has been lost or destroyed, a handwritten copy was made by William Bradford just two years after the original. Spelling has been updated from the original 17th-century English.See all footnotes
“Giving Thanks,” Pilgrim Hall Museum, accessed November 19, 2014, http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/giving_thanks.htm. Spelling has been updated from the original 17th-century English.See all footnotes
“Read the Charter,” Rhode Island Colonial Charter: 1663–2013, accessed November 19, 2014, http://livelyexperiment.org/read-the-charter/.See all footnotes
“Constitution of South Carolina – March 19, 1778,” Yale Law School, accessed November 19, 2014, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sc02.asp.See all footnotes
“The Virginia Declaration of Rights,” The Charters of Freedom, accessed November 19, 2014, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

A Vision of Despotism

http://commonconstitutionalist.com/current-events/a-vision-of-despotism/

August 7, 2014 By the Common Constitutionalist

The Common Constitutionalist

We conservatives love to complain about Obama – that he’s a lawless president, he’s despotic – that we’ve never seen anyone like him. How did he ever get elected?

Well, yesterday on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh read excerpts from a commentor of one of his brother David’s latest articles, “Democrats, the Constitution and the Rule of Law”.

She, the commentor, describes the gist of his article: “… an entire political party and liberal media that grossly underappreciated our unique constitutional system of government and are so blinded by their ideological goal, that they have no problem virtually conspiring with this lawless president and trampling the Constitution and the rule of law to serve his and their ends.”

You’re welcome to read Rush’s take on it here.

Here’s mine, and it ties into a segment that Mark Levin discussed the night prior.

It’s Monday, September 17, 1787 – the last day of the Constitutional Convention and Ben Franklin had a colleague read his parting remarks.

Within those remarks was this: “… I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but that may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

See, virtually everything that has gone wrong in this country was foretold by the founders. They weren’t soothsayers – they couldn’t see the future. They were great students of history, which always repeats itself, and more, they were gifted students of human nature, which, throughout history, has never changed.

But to simply blame Obama, the current media, or a political party is a copout. Obama is just the last of a long line of anti-constitutionalists, from approaching two centuries ago.

Take, for example, a man, any man. He starts a company from scratch – builds it up from nothing into something great. He is rightly proud of his accomplishment, of all the hard work and his vision for its success.

He has a son who comes to work for him and his dream is to pass the company to the son. The son progresses through the ranks and becomes the president of his father’s company. He has his own ideas, but faithfully and honorably follows his dad’s vision.

The story ends, as does the company, with the passing of the father. Now that “dad” is out of the way, he naturally thinks his vision for the company is superior and steers it in another direction and to its eventual demise.

It happens all the time. And that’s what happened to our great Republic.

Our country flipped from one of Divine Providence under the watchful eyes of the founders, to one of Manifest Destiny around the time of Andrew Jackson, which roughly coincides with the passing of the last founding fathers.

With “Dad” out of the way, our nation’s leaders were now “free” to pursue a different vision, one that Franklin foretold.

So why has it taken so long? After all, “Dad” died centuries ago.

Well, each generation must be born into a nation that is just a little less anchored to our founding principles.

Neither Woodrow Wilson nor Franklin Roosevelt was completely successful because there were still enough citizens that grew up without all the safety nets and regulations. The citizenry of that era could still recall a time of American “rugged

By WhatDidYouSay.org

individualism”.

Over the years – from generation to generation, that has been “bred” out of a lot of us. We know nothing of a time without welfare, food stamps, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and massive government rules and regulations.

And that’s how we ended up with Obama. He is merely the culmination of almost two centuries of the “son” running the company.

To them, it’s not radical ideology or despotism. It’s merely the “son’s” vs. the “father’s” vision.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

We Hold These Truths To Be Self Evident

http://eaglerising.com/7161/hold-truths-self-evident/#issw8IrsP2E6xyft.99

By David Whitley / 4 July 2014

JULY 4, 1776, some 238 years ago, the Declaration of Independence was approved and the battle was on. This world famous document — today studied daily around the world– for the first time declared to a watchful world that the only true way to be free and independent from the chains of powerful men was to be dependent upon the Creator of the universe. This firm reliance in providence is what gave the Founders the resolve and courage to set forth upon the greatest journey in modern history.
In patriotic boldness John Hancock signed first, saying, “The price on my head has just doubled.” Rumor has it that Hancock wrote so big as to allow the King to read it without his glasses. Benjamin Franklin while signing said “We must hang together or most assuredly we shall hang separately.”

These men knew the risks to not only their fortunes but to their very lives. They risked it all. Some gave all. Are we today cut from that cloth? Are there any George Washingtons among us today?

The original draft of the Declaration boldly declared slavery an abomination. However, two southern colonies prevented the language from remaining, and thus without unanimous consent, the language was removed upon the final draft. Make no mistake, the Founding Fathers, some even as slave holders themselves, were true abolitionists.

Three of the men most responsible for the birth of this new nation and the penning of the Declaration gave to us indispensable wisdom on how to remain free:

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.” — John Adams

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Ben Franklin

These three men would also comprise a committee set forth by the Continental Congress to come up with ideas for the Great Seal of

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

the United States of America. Today that final design can be found on the back of the one dollar bill. However, the very first design included a depiction of Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea (following the smoke and fire of God) with Pharaoh and his army being swallowed up by the rushing waters. The motto circling the image declared, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The Founding Fathers, being the children of the Great Awakening era, knew their Bibles and knew the significance of God’s providence in history. They studied philosophy, they studied government. They knew that for government to truly be an instrument of the people, by the people and for the people, it must begin with faith in God. Only a virtuous people will be good public servants. These rulers would be of their own, choosing from among themselves.

The liberty bell in Philadelphia — cracked during the revolution — declares this truth. It holds the inscription of Leviticus 25:10 “Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”

Today we are told by an all powerful IRS that the churches and pulpits of America are no place for political rhetoric. Churches today face fines and loss of non-profit status if they dare speak out on their view of politics and government. It wasn’t always this way.

Leading up to the revolution was a group of patriot soldiers known as the black robe regiment. These men were the patriot clergymen who gave rousing sermons to their congregations and to town hall meetings held in their churches all across the colonies. These speeches were vital and instrumental in getting the word out to the people, encouraging and educating the colonists about the need for revolution if freedom was indeed their desire.

Today we call this networking and mobilization. It has become the foundation upon which success is achieved in both our personal and professional lives.

These black robed clergy knew that without God — life, liberty and the pursuits of man — are all truly nothing more than what we now refer to as “survival of the fittest.”

Soon after the Declaration, the Continental Congress assigned a paid Chaplain to each Regiment of George Washington’s continental army. Washington himself asked all soldiers to attend religious services and prayed himself for the “blessing and protection of Heaven” and to “endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.”

We are a nation adrift — we’ve been lost at sea for so long most no longer remember when or where we set out on this journey and certainly have no clue what-so-ever on where we are headed. We are like lost children who have forgotten their parents and who only know but where they stand.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence: 17 lost their fortunes, 12 had their homes destroyed, 5 became prisoners of war, 1 had two sons imprisoned on the British starving ship Jersey, 1 had a son killed in battle, 1 had his wife die from harsh prison treatment and 9 of the signers died during the War.

When Samuel Adams signed the Declaration, he said: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.”

John Adams prophesied: “I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” Continuing he said, “I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration…Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory…Posterity will triumph in that day’s transaction, even though we should rue it, which I trust in God we shall not.”

Today we face a broken world, divided people, discontent, fear, political crisis, war, famine, moral depravity, licentiousness, covetousness and selfishness beyond comprehension.

Today I wonder if we do still believe that all are created equal.
Do we acknowledge that they have a Creator?
Do we still believe in unalienable Rights?
While we pursue our wants and pleasures and so-called happiness, do we as a people still believe in Life or Liberty?
Do we truly still hold these Truths to be self-evident?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Hey, Secularists: Our Founders Respected Christianity — Get Over It

By Steve Pauwels / http://clashdaily.com/2013/07/hey-secularists-our-founders-respected-christianity-get-over-it/#ixzz2YQ4y7oMl

507px-Washington_Praying_1928_Issue-2c This Independence Day weekend, let’s envision millions of Americans hazarding a peek at the actual history of their nation — original source documents and all. Their jaws might hit the floor like a burnt out firework.

You see, what they’d find is not the fun-house-mirror portraits of our Founders which have been foisted imperiously on the culture for decades: a collection of rigid, prickly secularists who might tolerate the notion of a god, but certainly have little use for him in any official capacity. What they’d discover, instead? A company of philosophical giants composed uniformly of red-blooded Christians or, at least, individuals for whom a thoroughgoingly “Christianized” take on the world was a given.

As Gary Demar succinctly put it recently: “The Constitution was written against the moral background of a religious worldview that was rooted in the Bible.”

These founding luminaries’ explicit statements, the way they lived, the manner in which they formulated our republican system – – all confirm: not only did they NOT demand the U.S. government cultivate sterile neutrality toward “religion”; they consistently hoped conscientious leaders and public institutions would actively fortify faith and piety within American society.

I won’t enumerate elected officials’ specific calls– easily dozens of them — for periods of public prayer, fasting and/or thanksgiving issued during the Revolutionary era. Authorities local, state and Federal regularly rolled out these summons in the run up to “the Contest with Great Britain”, during that protracted and perilous conflict and throughout the newborn United States’ dicey early days. The infant nation was struggling to get on her feet, our Founders recognized the persistent need for Divine Assistance and they plainly said as much. Period.

I don’t recall colonial versions of the ACLU or Barry Lynn’s bunch crashing the party to make a separation-of-church-and-state stink.

Our Lions of Liberty — Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, Henry, even the spiritually contrarian Paine, among multiple others — traced the revolutionary enterprise’s success directly to God’s hands-on intervention. Their forceful professions of same are abundantly on the record.

Literally, or by their devotion to the cause, these signed on to a tradition-defying proposition: “all men are created equal”. They assumed the involvement of a “Creator” Who “endowed” every man with “certain, inalienable rights”. Their flaming passion for liberty was largely stirred to life from the embers of biblical revelation: “In the beginning … God created Man in His own image”.

Figuring hugely in our Founders’ reasoning regarding freedom and irrevocable rights? The Judeo-Christian belief in a personal God Who made all things.

Says who? Patriots John Adams and cousin Sam for two. Benjamin Rush and John Hancock for a couple others.

And: “Natural liberty” and “civil liberty” “is a gift of the Beneficent Creator, to the whole human race.” — Alexander Hamilton.

“The Christian Religion … is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty,” — Thomas Jefferson.

Another counter-balancing, Divinely imparted heads-up urged these statesmen to be wary of their fellow man — because mankind, having become corrupted and alienated from the ways of its Maker, could not be guilelessly trusted. Individuals and nations, left unconstrained, would predictably choose evil, abuse power, conduct themselves short-sightedly, destructively.

Scripture’s accounts of man’s fallenness served meaningfully as backbone to that conviction. And it resulted in the emergence of this country’s birthing covenants and subsequent model of government. Pure democracy? Too combustible in a world stocked with iniquitously flawed individuals. A constitutional republic, composed of three off-setting branches and self-interested states, was the optimum, if imperfect, way they chose.

“The only foundation for … a republic is to be laid in Religion.” — Benjamin Rush

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. … [W]hat is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” –James Madison

Their treasured nations’ ongoing “happiness and prosperity”? These 18th-century colossi insistently pegged that to its people’s and leaders’ fealty to a holy God and His precepts.

“We have no government … capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion,” admonished John Adams. “Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

In his renowned September 1796 Farewell Address, President Washington echoed Adams’ cautionary counsel (“Religion and morality are indispensable supports … to political prosperity”); as did Adams’ eventual successor Jefferson (“Liberty to worship our Creator … [is] proved by our experience to be [good government’s] best support”); as did, some years later, Chief Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries (Paraphrase: Religion and public worship neglected? Government imperiled.)

Puzzled to spy Franklin and Jefferson among this religion-esteeming assembly? Don’t be. The revisionist academics have sloppily (mendaciously?) caricatured them as anti-Gospel skeptics, the platonic ideal of pre-modern “Deists”. Hardly on target.

The inexcusable distortion of these men and their peers as bewigged versions of today’s “Freedom From Religion Foundation” has never been historically defensible. Yes, they abhorred the prospect of a National Church. Clearly, several of them hypocritically fell short of the very Bible-saturated standards they espoused — as did the nation, from the get-go.

But table-pounding pronouncements that Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et. al., would have snarled at prayer offered before a football game or a Bible passage read in a classroom or Christmas songs caroled on the town green? Fact-challenged, historically insupportable preposterosities, all of them.

It’s not all that complicated: God played the central role in the universe’s founding – so He played the central role in America’s. Our genius Founding Fathers got that point, even if so many of our contemporary “geniuses” don’t.

Image: US Postage Stamp, Washington at Prayer, 1929 Issue, 2c; source US Post Office / Gwillhickers: public domain

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Founding Fathers

Yes. The Founding Fathers Had Much to Say About Homosexuality, and Thus, Same Sex Marriage

by Tim Brown http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/what-the-founders-believed-about-homosexuality/

What The Founding Fathers Believed About Homosexuality

I have made no bones about the fact that the ultimate authority on the issue of homosexuality is the Bible and it is crystal clear in condemning it. If others want to cite polls and commentaries and “experts” to attempt to bolster their claim in favor of homosexuality they are welcome to do so. However, what I find a bit disingenuous are those that will talk about rights within the context of the Constitution, which was written by men, not God as though the men who wrote it and backed it would have sided with practicing homosexuals today on the issue of marriage. I can tell you that the issue of marriage would have never been addressed as it is today, simply because the view of homosexuality was addressed first, thus making the point of same-sex “marriage” a ridiculous notion.

First, note that our founding fathers would have been outraged that homosexuals would be out in the open. They knew that such perversion would both undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Under the British common law, the term sodomy was used to identify same-sex relations and was a capital crime. Understand that the founders referenced Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England extensively. He was a British attorney, jurist, law professor, author, and political philosopher.

Blackstone’s commentaries were the premiere legal source used by the Founding Fathers in America. So this should carry some weight with those who claim they know what the Founding Fathers knew and wanted concerning the issue of homosexuality, but I’m guessing they will dismiss it. In Blackstone’s Book the Fourth.: of Public Wrongs in his book titled Of Offences against the Persons of Individuals, Chapter Fifteen, he writes the following on pages 215-216 (emphasis added):

IV. WHAT has been here observed…, which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast…. But it is an offence of so dark a nature…that the accusation should be clearly made out….

I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in it’s very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta
says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur

Most Americans are completely unaware that the “Father of our country,” George Washington, who would also be considered this country’s first “Commander-in-Chief” approved the dismissal from the service at Valley Forge in 1778 of Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin. Why did he do this? According to the orders, which are held at the Library of Congress, Enslin was “attempting to commit sodomy” with another soldier. Under the title of “Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778” there is the following entry:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

What’s even more interesting is that Enslin’s dismissal came less than two weeks after another soldier, Ensign Anthony Maxwell, was acquitted of the charge of “propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin” on Feb. 27, 1778. Penny Star cites the transcription of the court martial dated March 3, 1778: “At a Brigade Court Martial whereof Colo. Burr was President (Feby. 27th. 1778,) Ensign Maxwell of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for propagating a scandalous report prejudicial to the character of Lieutt. Enslin. The Court after maturely deliberating upon the Evidence produced could not find that Ensign Maxwell had published any report prejudicial to the Character of Lieutt. Enslin further than the strict line of his duty required and do therefore acquit him of the Charge.”

Note that our first President viewed “sodomy” or homosexual relations with “Abhorrence and Detestation.” He was not a spineless, wishy washy, panty waisted man like the current occupant of the White House, who claims his views have “evolved.” He was a man that recognized perverse behavior for what it was, perversion. He was not alone either. In all thirteen colonies homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense and eventually that grew to encompass each and every one of the fifty states. By the way, that fell under “equal treatment under the law.”

The law was based upon Leviticus 20:13:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.”

This verse was “adopted into legislation and enforced by the colonies of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut.” Oh the irony that 2012′s GOP Mormon nominee for President Mitt Romney was the one to “legalize” homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts. Here are just a few of the states and the punishments they executed for sodomy.

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. GEORGIA

That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. MAINE

That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. ¹³ [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. PENNSYLVANIA

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT

Ah, but some will say, “Thomas Jefferson would have never stood for this. He wanted liberty and equal rights for homosexuals to get married.” Not according to the record he didn’t. In Notes on the State of Virginia by Matthew Carey (1794) Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, “dismemberment” of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. I’m guessing there weren’t too many sodomites wanting that to take place. You might say that is Jefferson’s home state, but not Jefferson’s thoughts on the issue. Not so fast. Jefferson actually authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, pp. 226-227, from Jefferson’s “For Proportioning Crimes and Punishments)). The below capture of Jefferson’s legislation is courtesy of The Library of Congress and Apologeticspress.org.

I’ll conclude by stating that the founders understood the role that morality plays in a culture. Washington in his famous “Farewell Address,” which used to be memorized by high school students in America said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert … ?”

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ‘Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Now understand this. I don’t believe that all the founders were Christian. Obviously there were Unitarians, at least one Jew, Christians, atheists and deists, and many that belonged to the Masonic Lodge. While morality apart from Jesus Christ results in moralism, there is no doubt that the morals that were taught in the Bible were taken to heart in regards to sodomy. In other words, if we take Washington’s words seriously, then he not only has referenced those of the homosexual community as “abhorrent and detestable,” but he has also said they cannot rightly call themselves patriots. Today, these criminals are out in the open spewing their filth and embraced by the criminals in Washington, instead of facing just punishment.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

A Message From My Dad

I need your prayers. I want to try something very important that I BELIEVE needs to be done now. In a few months we will vote on who we want to lead our Nation as our President. I will not be endorsing any person during these articles. In looking to the future I want to step back into our past. I hope to nourish our love for the USA that will hopefully take you to the voting booth after bathing your choice in prayer. You may have forgotten some of this, maybe some of it will be new, but all will be fantastic reading. Trust me!! Please pray for our Nation and for me.

These articles that I will be presenting to you can be proven. After I have concluded these articles, I will provide any requests for information on my sources. Again I will not take any side in the present political debates in these articles. So….here we go. Please give me a week or more to convince you to check these out daily………….

Benny

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Congress of Massachusetts, Provincial October 22, 1774 concurred with the declaration of its President, John Hancock:

“We think it is incumbent upon this people to humble themselves before God on account of their sins, for He hath been pleased in His righteous judgment to suffer a great calamity to befall us, as the present controversy between Great Britain and the Colonies, [And] also to implore the Divine Blessing upon us, that by the assistance of His grace, we may be enabled to reform whatever is amiss among us, that so God may be pleased to continue to us the blessings we enjoy, and remove the tokens of His displeasure, by causing harmony and union to be restored between Great Britain and these Colonies.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The First Prayer in Congress offered by Rev. Duche in Carpenter’s Hall, Philadelphia, on Sept. 7, 1774.

“Be Thou present O God of Wisdom and direct the counsel of this Honorable Assembly; enable them to settle all things on the best and surest foundations; that the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, Harmony and Peace may be effectually restored, and the Truth and Justice, Religion and Piety, prevail and flourish among the people.

Preserve the health of their bodies, and the vigor of their minds, temporal Blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting Glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Saviour, Amen

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Library of Congress, from the collected reports of the various patriots, recorded on a famous historical placard the effect of that first prayer upon Congress:

“Washington was kneeling there, and Henry, Rutledge, Lee, and Jay, and by their side there stood, bowed in reverence, the Puritan Patriots of New England, who at that moment had reason to believe that an armed soldiery was wasting their humble households. It was believed that Boston had been bombarded and destroyed.

They prayed fervently “for America, for Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially for the town of Boston,” and who can realize the emotion with which they turned imploringly to Heaven for Divine interposition and—“It was enough” said Mr. Adams, “to melt a heart of stone. I saw the tears gush in to the eyes of the old, grave, Pacific Quakers of Philadelphia.”

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Founding Fathers’

BY: ANDREW MORGAN | JULY 28, 2022

Minority and Less Populated Areas Would Lack Representation

Cabalism Comes to Light

An Oppressive Majority

Left Looks to Crush the Right

Andrew Morgan is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Army, a senior executive within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and a retired U.S. Navy captain. He received his MBA from George Washington University and master’s from National Defense University.

Share this:

Like this:

2020 the “Perfect Storm” facing our Republic— All three branches of our Government are in peril

Years of preparatory work were spent in misleading and mis-directional propaganda

Contested voting results marred the election’s finality and ultimately its dismissal

Claims that the poor were going to be disenfranchised of their votes

The scheduled voting was extended by two months

Division, violence, slander and libel were widespread

A delusional/cunning/conniving campaign made unrealistic promises to win the population

Anger and mob violence were deliberately stirred against “privilege,” possessions, and status

Deceptive claims persuaded the “majority” they were robbed of their electoral victory

Inevitable civil war was sparked at the election’s end because Lenin’s group failed to win the majority

The dissolution of the old State and a “transformation” of the new system was promised to lead to true socialism but it brought history’s worst and longest ruling tyrant

Share this:

Like this:

Reported By Benjamin Arie | Published March 4, 2019 at 2:39pm | Modified March 5, 2019 at 9:20am

Voices should be heard even if they aren’t able to scream the loudest.

The entire purpose of having state and local governments is that a far-off central government can’t bully the rest of the country, but that’s exactly what would happen if the Electoral College were abandoned.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” it’s been said.

Share this:

Like this:

By: Wilmot Proviso on June 23, 2016

Exactly:

Share this:

Like this:

By Daniel Mann March 21, 2016

One skeptic wrote, “The only responsible way to make law is to ignore religion, because it would be impossible to please everyone.”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“Whether evangelical or rationalist, most Patriots assumed that Christianity would, in some sense, be the cornerstone for the preservation of the new American Republic.”

“All projects of government, founded in the supposition or expectation of extraordinary degrees of virtue [apart from Christianity], are evidently chimerical.”

“Tocqueville manifested a view of religion not unlike that of several prominent founding fathers, including Jefferson…maintaining that it was essential for the masses to keep believing in Christianity—or at least in good and evil—and in the eternal rewards in the afterlife.”

Share this:

Like this:

by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge Published on February 9, 2016

“Do you think that the mainstream media would love our Founding Fathers if they were here today?”

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

Read more: Zero Hedge

Share this:

Like this:

By LU Staff on July 25, 2015

Share this:

Like this:

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evidences a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Share this:

Like this:

Written by Warren Mass, Friday, 10 July 2015

Share this:

Like this:

Posted on December 10, 2014 by Tamara Jackson

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/christian-foundations-america/

Christian Foundations of America

URL of the Original Site: https://answersingenesis.org/culture/america/christian-foundations-of-america/

1st. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.

2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.

3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion

4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.

5th. That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.5

Footnotes

Share this:

Like this:

August 7, 2014 By the Common Constitutionalist

Share this:

Like this:

By David Whitley / 4 July 2014

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.” — John Adams

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Ben Franklin

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

What The Founding Fathers Believed About Homosexuality