Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘John Adams’

Commentary: America is Spiritually, Morally, and Financially Bankrupt


waving flagCommentary By Pamela Adams April 2, 2016

Benjamin Franklin once said, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” 

The Democratic Party has two candidates who are falling all over themselves trying to outdo the other in making people “easy” or comfortable in their poverty.  Candidates Sen. Bernard Sanders and Hillary Clinton both want to prove that they are the one willing to give away more free stuff:

  • free college,
  • free rent,
  • free phones,
  • free abortions,
  • free birth control,
  • free healthcare,
  • free food.

You don’t need to work or even try to become successful.  The government will take care of you.  The only thing that neither wants free is the American people or their speech.

That being said, the GOP race evidences another aspect of Franklin’s quote.  Americans are not just comfortable in their monetary poverty, they are also equally comfortable in their spiritual poverty.  On Good Friday, the National Enquire ran a story ‘claiming’ candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) – R allegedly had affairs with five women.  Anyone bothering to read the article realized it was written as a defense lawyer’s dream.  It was filled with “allegedly”, “claimed”, “supposedly” and other such words that mean, “You can’t sue us because we didn’t actually accuse anybody of anything.”  It is essentially a page out of CBS News’ National Guard story against George W. Bush that was completely based on fake documents, but that didn’t matter.  The story itself was too important.

However, it’s not the fact that a hit piece was used. Such things are expected in elections. What’s troubling is the public’s reaction to it. The best example is Michelle Collins of “The View,” who giddily admitted she hoped this scandal was true, because Cruz lives by a “crazy moral code.”  She wants to see a man like that fall.

Another co-host, Candace Cameron Bure, a devout, unapologetic Christian, called Collins out on her statement, rightfully pointing out that Ted Cruz (TX) – R’s so-called “crazy moral code” is actually a biblical lifestyle.  Though Collins relented to that fact, she continued to ramble on about wanting to see him fail because “he’s not a good guy.”

Why does she think he’s not a good guy?  Because he believes life begins at conception and that he doesn’t think taxpayer money should fund the abortion clinics known as Planned Parenthood?  Or is it because he believes in traditional marriage and Christian business owners shouldn’t be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding?  Maybe it’s just because he believes in the Constitution and that States have more rights than the federal government.  Trump has said many times he would stop such attacks on Christians.  If that is the case, this attack on Christian values should offend his supporters even if they dislike Cruz. In a similar fashion, the Black Lives Matters protesters at Trump rallies who intentionally attempt to paint him and his supporters in a bad light should equally offend non-Trump supporters.

We have gone from a people who rightly looked up to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, not because they were perfect men, but because they tried to be honorable, virtuous men. They sacrificed everything for liberty and freedom for all posterity.  But America is now so incredibly comfortable in our spiritual poverty that people are actually delighting in the fact that Cruz could be destroyed by what appears to be a completely false story because it damages a faithful Christian.  Are we so morally void of any decency that, as many have said, they actually don’t care whether it’s true as long as it destroys Cruz while completely dismissing what it does to Heidi Cruz, her girls, the five suspected women and their families?AMEN

Since the time of Woodrow Wilson and the progressive war on America started discrediting Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin, we have crushed our moral compass and discarded our national role models.  Resulting is our comfort in our ethical poverty including coveting, greed, pre-marital sex, abortion, divorce, open affairs, lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, gossiping, and bearing false witness. In our enlightened world, we can openly violate the Ten Commandments as long as it gets us ahead.  We have become so comfortable and lazy in our spiritual poverty we jump on Twitter to call people “bitch”, “whore”, “slut”, “stupid”, threaten and delight in the thought of a gang rape.  We are becoming morally bankrupt towards others simply because they hold a difference of opinion or support another candidate.Different Free Speech Ideologies

2016 Americans name-calling and election-time mudslinging is nothing new in American politics.  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had just as nasty of a campaign as we are seeing today.  But there was one big difference.  The insults of the 1800 election were hurled through articles written by Adams and Jefferson themselves with a few willing newspaper participants.  Today we are barraged with a 24-7 news cycle, talk radio, “The View,” podcasts and Twitter.  Rather than watching the back and forth of two candidates trying to out maneuver the other, we as a population are throwing verbal assaults at each other and refusing to find common ground.

For a population that has felt crushed under the foot of Obama and political correctness, Trump has given people the feeling of freedom to say whatever they want.  At the same time, the anonymity of the Internet has given us the protection to attack anyone with a differing opinion.  It is liberating.  But in a civil society we need to function under our own personal moral compass or we fall under the weight of our own depravity.  As it says in 1 Corinthians 10:23: “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial.  “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is edifying.

Adams supporters and Jefferson supporters were able to come together after the election because the insults lobbed were between the two candidates, not the common man.  How are we as a people going to unite after a year of personal insults, personal attacks, and personal threats against each other? Some hurling those insults openly profess they don’t want to unite, often saying, “We don’t need you anyway,” and “Get out of the way or get run over.”  America, we are in real trouble and unless we enrich ourselves spiritually, or at least morally, it doesn’t matter who becomes president, Clinton, Cruz, Sanders or Trump, we are done as a free republic. We will require a dictator because we will become so uncivilized that society will demand someone come in and put a boot on the neck of those who can’t control themselves.

As Franklin warned, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” 

Is it possible for Trump and Cruz supporters to be civil with each other when we both claim we want to disrupt the establishment, stop ISIS, end illegal immigration, stop refugees, strengthen the economy, and limit the reach of the government?  We share common wants and beliefs.  Why can’t we share common civility?  If we can’t, we will share a common poverty, both in spirit and in the wallet, under Commandant Clinton or Bernard Sanders. 

But that’s just my 2 cents.
Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

What Would the Founders Think of the 2016 Election? Not so Much Different from 1800.


waving flagBy Pamela Adams March 28, 2016

Accusations of sexual misconduct.  Choruses of liar, dirty tricks, coward and dictator. Warnings of war.  Allegations of ineligibility. Using sympathetic media to not only cushion a candidacy but to spread propaganda about opponents.

What would our Founding Fathers think of this behavior?  Well, since this is describing the 1800 campaign between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, they must have considered it business as usual.  

Election-of-1800

During this highly political and dirty campaign, many citizens thought their very young country would not survive such a vicious display between presidential candidates.  Two men that just 24 years earlier stood together against England and composed the Declaration of Independence, were now at war with each other.  The past four years they were the two highest elected officials in this new country; President Adams, a big government Federalist, and Vice-President Jefferson, a small government Democratic-Republican.  Now, they were the worst of enemies.

Adams supporters suggested, “we would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution,” and “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced,” if Jefferson were elected.
Jefferson people responded in kind, calling Adams a liar, a “repulsive pedant”, and a “gross hypocrite”.  Going even further, Adams was described as behaving “neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character.”  That’s being born with both male and female sex organs, folks.
1804 Election poster.
1804 Election poster.
After the election was held and Jefferson was victorious, another problematic issue arose.  Both Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr had received 73 electoral votes each.  At the time, there was not a distinction between votes for President and for Vice-President.  It was strictly majority wins.  While the issue was rectified with the 12th Amendment in 1804, this election went to the House of Representatives, which at the time was still full of lame-duck Federalists to break the tie.

Alexander Hamilton, who vehemently despised Burr, led the charge to convince House members Jefferson would be the lesser of two evils.  Burr lost favor with Jefferson as well as he started actively trying to steal the Presidency after running as Jefferson’s VP.  Jefferson eventually won the House election and Burr received the Vice-Presidency, largely due to Hamilton’s involvement.  The two continued feuding on both personal and political issues until July 11, 1804, when Burr challenged Hamilton to a dual and shot him.  Burr was never prosecuted even though Hamilton died the next day.  He apparently could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not loose support.

Things were not much better during the re-election campaign of President John Quincy Adams against Andrew Jackson.  Jackson’s wife, Rachel Donelson, had been married to Lewis Robart, an abusive and obsessively jealous man.  After finally leaving him, Rachel was told Lewis had divorced her.  In truth, he had just petitioned the State of Kentucky for a divorce on the grounds of desertion.  Rachel and Jackson then married only to discover Lewis never followed through with the divorce.  Once Lewis discovered she remarried, he did obtain an official divorce and Jackson and Rachel quietly remarried.

Though the mixup was understood by friends and family, political opponents used it as a way to paint Jackson as an adulterer and Rachel as a bigamist.  Imagine what they would have done with a candidate who openly bragged about his affairs with married women.  A strong, Christian woman, Rachel was completely dismayed by the slander.  The trumped up scandal took it’s toll on Rachel and shortly after Jackson was elected, she suffered a severe heart attack.  She died before he was inaugurated.

The only thing more disgusting than the ugliness of politics is the disingenuous behavior of the media.  They pit the candidates against each other, asking questions designed specifically to cause attacks against each other, and then act appalled when the mud starts flying.  “Tell us how disgusting your opponent is,” followed by “I can’t believe what you just said about your opponent.”  Ted Cruz exposed this in the first debate by calling the moderators out, repeating one-by-one their agenda driving questions.  He ended by reminding them, “This is not a cage match.”

It’s no wonder the Main Steam Media has lost its relevance in the world and more and more people are turning to sites like this one for their news.  They are drug dealers who give free drugs to get people hooked, and then criticize and demean the addict for wanting and needing a fix.

The Democratic-Republican Party eventually split in the late 1820’s.  One group followed Andrew Jackson and formed the Democratic Party.  The other group followed John Quincy Adams and formed the National Republican Party, which soon evolved into the Whig Party. Around the same time, the Federalist Party completely dissolved as well with its members also integrating into the two newly formed parties. 

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson eventually mended their broken relationship and spent years engaging in a friendly correspondence until their deaths.  The two men both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, each feeling outwitted by the other for being outlived, as neither knew of the other’s death.

As a good majority of us cringe with every ugly assault lobbed this primary season, even our Founding Fathers stumbled into the same pit of degradation we are today. 

Even so, I’d rather be there than in a dictatorial, authoritarian or fascist system where we don’t have the freedom to voice our objections.  How we emerge at the end of this cycle, I don’t know, but in 1800 the two political parties died within 30 years.  I would say most American’s, both Republicans and Democrats, would be pretty ok with that today.  Maybe we’re just ripping off the bandaid, enduring short-term pain by exposing the wound, so we can begin healing once the sting is gone.  At least, that’s what I’m praying for.

But that’s just my 2 cents.

Pamela AdamsPamela Adams

Pamela J. Adams maintains TheFactsPaper.com which includes her blog Liberty Letters. She is a stay-at-home mom who began researching history, science, religion, and current events to prepare for home schooling. She started Liberty Letters as short lessons for her daughter and publishes them for everyone’s benefit. Pamela has a Degree in Mathematics and was in the workforce for 20 years as a teacher, Marketing Director, Manager and Administrative Assistant. You can contact her through her website or follow her Liberty Letters accounts at Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr.

Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

OUR FOUNDERS ON ISLAM: They Slammed Obama’s ‘Beautiful Religion’


waving flagURL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/our-founders-on-islam-they-slammed-obamas-beautiful-religion

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.05.46 PM

Contrary to what Obama would like for you to believe, the founding fathers were not very fond of Islam. Check it out from Keith Farrell via The Federalist Papers….

After winning its independence from England, American vessels no longer enjoyed British protection. France, dismayed that the US would not aid it in its war against England, also ceased protection of American ships. The result led to American vessels being raided and plundered by Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast.

After agreeing to pay 10% of the new nations dismal GDP in exchange for passage, attacks continued. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were sent as representatives to mediate the problem. It was there that they discovered that the Islamic law the pirates followed made it their duty to attack non-Muslims.

“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise,” Jefferson wrote to Secretary of State John Jay, explaining peace was not possible. (The Federalist Papers)

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.06.26 PM

Ben Franklin wrote of his experience: “Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book (the Qur’an) forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.” (TFP)

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.07.07 PM

John Adams, in his report to Jay, wrote of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and called him a “military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.” (TFP)

Read more: The Federalist Papers

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

U.S. Constitution Acknowledges Jesus, is Unquestionably Uniquely Christian


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

 

decl-locThis year marked the 239th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Not insignificantly, Barack Obama intentionally ignored God in his July 4th “video tribute to America.”However, the signers of the Declaration of Independence—and the majority of America’s 200 Founders—were quite clear: they believed in the God of the Bible. They consistently and publicly acknowledged and thanked God; their speeches, statements, and letters total many tens of thousands of volumes of books.

imgres

George Mason, one founder known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” affirmed: “My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, Whose tender mercies are all over His works… humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins.”Founder James Madison wrote, “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and are rising in reputation and wealth publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.”

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court of the last century, the Constitution communicates the Founder’s intentions by acknowledging both Christianity and Jesus Christ.

When the delegates deliberated over each word when writing the First Amendment, they did so within a specific religious and historical context— influenced by Christianity. In fact, George Mason proposed that the First Amendment include the following terminology:

“[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.” (Rowland, 1892, 1:244).

The Annals of Congress, records of their deliberations, evidence the Framers’ discussions about “religion” pertained to Christianity—not Islam, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, and not Judaism (Annals of Congress, 1789, pp. 440ff; Story, 1833, 3.1873:730-731).

Furthermore, Section 7 of Article I, refers to Christianity, not any other religion: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it….”

If this exception were made for Jews, Congress would have stated, “Saturdays excepted;” if for Muslims, “Fridays excepted.” If for people practicing no faith, delegates would have specified that the government be closed on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Yet the Founders specified: “Sundays excepted,” recognized the importance of the Christian faith to America’s founding.

Amendment1Their Christian worldview primarily explains the Founders’ reasoning to intentionally insert two Religion Clauses to prohibit federal government interference.

This was well understood by John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He testified: “Unto Him Who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son… Blessed be His holy name.”

Significantly, the U.S. Constitution closes with the following words after Article VII: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth …”

Anno-DominiThe Framers intentionally used the “Year of our Lord” (English for the Latin “Anno Domini,”A.D.). Granted, all western Christiansocio-political cultures have recorded time—dates and calendars of events—based on the person of Jesus Christ. Datesprior to Christwere recorded as B.C. (“Before Christ”).The Framers could have used a nominal pluralistic, multi-cultural, or politically correct designation like C.E. (“Common Era”) and B.C.E. (“Before the Common Era”). If they wanted to historically date the Constitution according to the Islamic calendar they would have used “A.H.” (“Anno Hegirae,” “in the Year of the Hijrah”), referring to Muhammad’s escape from Mecca in A.D. 622, officially marking Islam’s beginning.

Jesus is LordThe adjective, “Our Lord,” didn’t refer to a generic deity or to God as father or creator. It explicitly referred to Jesus Christ, who Christians (not anyone else) worship as the Son of God. 

To be clear: the Constitution of the United States explicitly refers to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, or any Hindu or Native American god known to the Founders, to validate its historical date and importance.

The Founder’s commitment to the Bible is noteworthy. Prior to the Revolutionary War, King George prohibited American colonists from printing the Bible in English. However this changed after the Battle of Yorktown when colonists first became free of British policies. In 1782 Congress, in its entirety, approved printing the Bible in English. On the first page of each newly printed Bible read: “Resolved, that the United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.”

John Adams, one of the most influential Founders, wrote in his diary and to his beloved friend Thomas Jefferson,

“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts that there exhibited… What a Utopia—what a Paradise would this region be! The Bible is the best book in the world.”

images-8It was no accident that “In God We Trust” and “Annuit Coeptis” (Latin, “God has favored our undertaking”) were first printed on American currency—to be used as the basis for all financial transactions.

IMG_4028Indeed, Alexander Hamilton, the founder of America’s financial system and first Secretary of the Treasury said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Declaration of Independence un-mistakenly alludes four times to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution ensures that Christians must be able to practice their faith freely, unimpeded by the government, that the day of Sunday is to be respected and that Jesus Christ is significant to history, time, date, and law. Without question the U.S. Constitution remarkably acknowledges uniquely Christian concepts and was framed by men who openly valued the God of the Bible.

AMEN freedom combo 2

What founders want to teach Obama this July 4


waving flagPosted By author-image Chuck Norris On 06/28/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/what-founders-want-to-teach-obama-this-july-4

I commend President Obama for giving the eulogy at the funeral of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was gunned down along with eight other precious souls during a Bible study at their Charleston Church. Obama said some honorable and moving words about the fallen. He also spoke at length about amazing grace – and even sang about it.

But then he stirred what I call the nebulous and confusing religious pot by stating: “If we can find that grace, anything is possible. If we contacted that grace – can tap that grace, everything can change.”

“If we can find”? “If we contacted … can tap”? “If”?

The president is right that “anything is possible” and “everything can change” with God’s amazing grace. But he ought not to have spoken with such ambiguity, doubt and conditionality as “if” finding grace were wishing upon a star or discovering a needle in a haystack.

America’s founders – as well as most presidents throughout history – were unequivocally certain about the role of faith in our republic. They were without hesitation or doubt when they spoke about the bedrock of religion in society and human hearts. Our founders knew without it, they were sunk as well as our nation.

On the eve of another Independence Day, I think it’s critical that we reconsider exactly how our founders expected religion to breathe life into our nation and play out in society. If we don’t, we run the risk of crippling our country and shredding it at its seams. Indeed, we’ve already traveled too far down the road of religious degradation by omitting God from classrooms to historic monuments. We have also bastardized our founders’ first tenet of religion (First Amendment) and totally abandoned their understanding and call for its primary purpose in our republic. Let me explain.

Our founders’ first tenet of religion is captured in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You know the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In short, religious liberty will reign in our new nation. Congress shall protect individuals from forced sectarianism unlike it was done in England, and choice and freedom are to be protected and secured from the tyranny of government.burke

Well, that isn’t our First Amendment today, or at least how most secular progressives interpret it. They explain and use it solely as a buffer from keeping religious opinion or discussion – in any way, shape or form – out of every governmental or public arena. But that is the polar opposite of the First Amendment’s very purpose, which was to protect and preserve religious practice and liberty in any place, including in the halls of government.

As I wrote in my New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” though Jefferson is generally hailed as the chief of church-state separation, proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from these facts: He endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salaries of the church’s priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.

Some might be completely surprised to discover that just two days after Jefferson wrote his famous letter citing the “wall of separation between Church & State,” he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol. The very seat of our nation’s government was used for sacred purposes. The Library of Congress’ website notes, “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church.”

President John Adams spoke about how central God was to be in our republic, when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And to what religion was Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. … And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united.”

Our Founders believed religion (specifically Christianity) would serve as the basis for morality and decency. They warned us specifically that, to abandon that foundation for our ethics, would leave society in civil unrest—just as we see today in run amuck classrooms and homes across the nation and people treating one another with such malevolence.

George Washington also warned future Americans of this very problem in his presidential farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … 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.”

Well, the present leaders of our nation (including the Supreme Court) have turned a deaf ear to Washington’s warning and taken him up on his challenge to try to maintain “morality … without religion.”tyrants

America is now like it was in the time of the Judges in the Old Testament: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). That’s how it is today – with God being abandoned, so is our moral basis, and everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes. We’ve lost our moral compass, and that includes our president.

As a result, the president is as lost as the most wayward and rebellious youth. Instead of conveying any form of positive Washington conviction about the role of religion, President Obama casts conditional clauses (“If”) and doubt. He might have sounded like a preacher this past week in Charleston, but the truth is he is a charlatan chameleon when it comes to religion and specifically Christianity. Indeed he’s been known to mock it as he did in 2006 when he gave the following secular progressive diatribe against it.

As my friend and editor of WND, Joseph Farah, noted in 2012, Obama’s speech was given before an audience led by socialist Jim Wallis at the Call for Renewal conference. It starts getting interesting around the 26-minute mark, when Obama first made the point publicly that “whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Obama went on, “Even if we had only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama asks rhetorically. “Would it be James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK – and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application. So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”muslim-obama

Regarding Obama’s words, I conclude not with my comments but those of John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of the College of New Jersey (1768-94; now Princeton University), who said, “He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.”You cannot be right for America if you're wrong with God

(Next week, I’ll expand on my thoughts here in my Independence Day weekend column, “In God we still must trust.” In the meantime, I highly encourage your reading of my New York Times bestseller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” where you will find loads more about what our founders actually thought, practiced, and wanted for our country)

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: