Forms new group

I agree in so many ways with Ron Paul and his view of the constitution…

But I simply couldn’t get behind his view on the WoT…which looked the same as the democrats and would have the same disastrous effect as withdrawing from Vietnam did..regardless as to who pulls the plug.

Is it realistic in today’s day and age to think we can go back to being non interventionist? I’ve thought long and hard about that. We would do ourselves a huge favor if we kicked the UN out of the US and got out of that damned organization before they start taxing us.

And that appears to be right around the corner.

God Bless Ron Paul…even though he’s made some offensive comments about Christians.

I don’t believe the Constitution is or ever was intended to be a ‘living document’…and we are in deep trouble with people in government breaking our laws.

“Secular” discrimination against religion is a great article at Townhall.com about the cherry-picked phrase that people keep bringing up in comments here: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but what they leave out is the rest of it: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….”

Sadly, these freedoms of the individual are no longer respected. The ultimate freedom is no longer the freedom to speak or practice one’s religion, but the freedom to not be offended by anyone else. It is now seen as rude if one person defends their religious beliefs publicly. Beliefs about morality are no longer welcome in the public sphere. The only place left for religion is within the walls of a person’s home or church. This new understanding of religion’s place in culture has destroyed the freedom of religion which the Founder’s sought to protect. Worse yet, Americans have ceased to understand religion altogether.

This seems to be particularly prevalent in those who entered the liberal indoctrination centers after the Bible was removed from the public schools, prayer was removed, and even the pledge of allegiance attacked, because it dared to mention that we are ‘one nation under God’. This sounds more like the Soviet Union rather than America, but this is happening all over the world.

People do not realize that a “secular” public sphere inherently assumes that there is no God. Since every person’s religious beliefs impact the way they view the world, a secular sphere discriminates against those whose opinions are rooted in their belief in God. The secular sphere accepts the beliefs of the atheist—that God does not have an impact on public life. For instance, a Christian will often differ from an Atheist in his or her view of public law because their core beliefs are different. One example of this is Christians who oppose euthanasia on the basis that God gives humans life and does not give them the discretion to end their lives. In contrast, many atheists would argue that, since there is no God, humans are free to end their own lives whenever they deem appropriate. By removing God from the public debate on euthanasia, secularism discriminates against the opinions of the Christian.

It reminds me of how Hitler sought not only to destroy Jews, but went after Christians and the Christian church. He saw Christianity as an extension of Judaeism, which he felt also needed to be destroyed. So much so, in fact, that he agreed more with Islam; which teaches its adherents that Christians are the descendants of pigs and monkeys, and are less-than-human. This makes it easier to whip up a frenzy among the masses to kill the infidel.

The religion of the evolutionist that denies the existence of God is still religious, and paves the way to justify genocide.

This kind of religious discrimination is seen clearly in a recent lawsuit filed in the UK by The Christian Institute against Google. The Christian Institute sought to purchase an advertisement from Google, “so that whenever the word ‘abortion’ was typed into the popular search engine, its link would appear on the side of the screen.” Google refused this request, stating, “At this time, Google policy does not permit the advertisement of web sites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content’”.

If Google had simply declined to allow advertisements involving the controversial topic of abortion, their decision would be completely understandable and fully within their rights as a private company. By removing a controversial topic from their advertisements they would not be discriminating against one religious view in favor of another. But this is not what they did.

Instead, Google accepted “adverts for abortion clinics, secular pro-abortion sites and secularist sites which attack religion,” while refusing to accept The Christian Institute’s “religious” ad. They did not shun the topic of abortion—just the “religious” view on abortion. In other words, they have discriminated against those whose view on abortion is influenced by their belief in God in favor of those whose view on abortion is influenced by their belief that God does not exist. This is a clear case of a company choosing to discriminate against one religious view in favor of another, and it is unsurprising that The Christian Institute filed suit against Google, claiming they had violated the UK’s Equality Act 2006 which outlaws discrimination “on grounds of religion or belief”.

Google’s policy is yet another example of the modern embracing of secularism. People no longer understand that everyone is religious.

An atheist’s viewpoint should not be promoted as that which everyone should accept, as this is discrimination against everyone else. Secular humanism is also a religion. And what’s worse is, the majority still believe there is a God, and 70% or more believe as Christians do, so this is discrimination against the majority of people in order to promote their silence in the public square.

I was thinking of this in terms of the ‘day of silence’ that the gay activists promoted in schools here in the US, which took place this past Friday here in the US. What it really represents is how public schools, with our tax dollars, are forcing the secular humanist belief system on Christian believers. This is forcing silence in the public square on those who believe in God. Because although they claimed it was a ‘day of silence’, activists were allowed to hand out pamphlets and propaganda promoting their view, and the majority were told to ‘be silent’. What are they afraid of? If their view is infallible, why not invite conversation on the topic?

Liberals expect that certain protected groups be given preferential treatment over everyone else, and this is why they are promoting the idea of some groups being ‘more equal’ than others. This is communism; a world without God; which turns it into a vicious world of narcissism where every man thinks only of himself.

See also: Jesus must come first

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” —Alexander Hamilton

Today, the 15th of December, is the 216th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to our Constitution, as ratified in 1791.

Read an excellent piece by Mark Alexander on this historic day…and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, which is tomorrow.

I’m in favor of this, partly because the Bible was a text book in our schools until the 1960’s. It’s not a new idea.

Although weirdly - Allahpundit at Hot Air is repeating that “separation of church and state’ hooey that the ACLU and liberals repeat. It doesn’t appear anywhere in our founding documents, so I don’t know where that comes from on a site that is supposed to espouse conservative thought and principles.

If he were to object to teaching religion in schools, maybe he ought to talk about how some schools are teaching children about the Koran and how to wage a jihad.

Here are some of the founders on the Bible as a text book in schools from the National Council on Bible curriculum in Public Schools:

• The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.”
  Patrick Henry
• “It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.”~Horace Greely
• “I have always said, and will always say, that studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens.”~Thomas Jefferson

But there is a longer list than that, that just touches the tip of the iceberg.

The Bible: Foundation of Liberty

If you want to live in a secular society, go to Russia where the words ’separation of church and state’ are actually written into their constitution and it’s illegal to teach anyone about religion until they’re over 18.

Religion is never a purely private affair. Those who tell you your religion should be “private” are attempting to make their religion the basis for public and political power over you.

There are compelling social reasons for making Christianity the foundation of everything that is taught in school, and the Framers of the Constitution understood these reasons.

• The Founding Fathers correctly believed that “religion, morality and knowledge” should be taught in public schools.
• They believed that morality could not be taught without religion, and that without morality, our nation would crumble.
• The U.S. Supreme Court (1844) declared that morality could not be taught in government-operated schools without the New Testament.
• Our entire system of government was based on religion and morality
• Or as the Founders often spoke of them, “piety and virtue.”

There is not a single Signer of the Constitution who would have agreed that the Constitution he was signing was intended to give the federal government the power to order municipal schools to remove The Ten Commandments and the Bible. The Founders’ opinion of the Bible, and of its use in schools, was clear:

The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.[54] [T]he Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life. . . . [It] should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.[55]
BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.[56]
FISHER AMES, AUTHOR OF THE HOUSE LANGUAGE FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT

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 there exhibited…. What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.[57] I have examined all [religions]… and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.[58]
JOHN ADAMS

[T]he Bible…. [is] a book containing the history of all men and of all nations and… [is] a necessary part of a polite education.[59]
HENRY LAURENS, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; U.S. DIPLOMAT; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The Bible itself [is] the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world. [60]
JOSEPH STORY, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE; FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE

To a man of liberal education, the study of history is not only useful, and important, but altogether indispensable, and with regard to the history contained in the Bible . . . “it is not so much praiseworthy to be acquainted with as it is shameful to be ignorant of it.”[61]
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

The reflection and experience of many years have led me to consider the holy writings not only as the most authentic and instructive in themselves, but as the clue to all other history. They tell us what man is, and they alone tell us why he is what he is: a contradictory creature that seeing and approving of what is good, pursues and performs what is evil. All of private and of public life is there displayed…. From the same pure fountain of wisdom we learn that vice destroys freedom; that arbitrary power is founded on public immorality.[62]
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, PENMAN AND SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

[The Bible] is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed.[63]
PATRICK HENRY

[T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible in that age, men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. The Bible is . . . a book which teaches man his own individual responsibility, his own dignity, and his equality with his fellow man.[64]
DANIEL WEBSTER

The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.[65]
JOHN JAY, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE OF THE U S. SUPREME COURT

The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal [secular] concerns of men.[66]
NOAH WEBSTER

Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.[67]
JAMES MCHENRY, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

I don’t think one is the same as the other. On the one hand, we’re fighting that ideology, on the other, we’re forcing people to learn revisionist history like ‘there was no holocaust’ the same line the Palestinian homocide bombing terrorists use.

They are not the same. The Ten Commandments were posted outside and inside of courthouses for a reason; because our laws were based on Mosaic law.

55. Benjamin Rush, Essays, pp. 94, 100, “A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book.”

56. Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co, 1809), pp. 134-135.

57. John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.

58. John Adams, Works, Vol. X, p. 85, to Thomas Jefferson on December 25, 1813.

59. Henry Laurens, The Papers of Henry Laurens, George C. Rogers, Jr., and David R. Chesnutt, editors (Columbia, S. C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1980), Vol. VIII, pp. 426-427, to James Lawrenson on August 19, 1772.

60. Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1854), p. 259, §446.

61. John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 34.

62. Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (New York: E. Bliss and E. White, 1821), p. 30, from “An Inaugural Discourse Delivered Before the New York Historical Society by the Honorable Gouverneur Morris on September 4, 1816.”

63. William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: James Webster, 1818), p. 402. See also George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia & London: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), p. 403.

64. Daniel Webster, Address Delivered at Bunker Hill, June 17, 1843, on the Completion of the Monument (Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1843), p. 31. See also W. P. Strickland, History of the American Bible Society from its Organization to the Present Time (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1849), p. 18.

65. John Jay, John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, Richard B. Morris, editor (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980), Vol. II, p. 709, to Peter Augustus Jay on April 8, 1784.

66. Noah Webster, The Holy Bible . . . With Amendments of the Language (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1833), p. v.

67. Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland (Baltimore: Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.

More documentation on this subject can be found here.

Wow, what a great article by Michael Medved at Townhall.

Senator John McCain’s recent comments about America’s heritage as a “Christian nation” ignited an ill-tempered blast of self-righteous condemnation – a reaction that highlighted the widespread misunderstandings, distortions and downright ignorance surrounding the nation’s founders and their view of religion’s role in society.

Asked a question about a recent poll that showed 55% of the public believing that “the Constitution establishes a Christian nation,” McCain responded: “I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn’t say, ‘I only welcome Christians.’ We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.”

I think the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what was happening with their concept of freedom and limited government.

Gerald Ford: “The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And we are certainly travelling down that path.

So let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?

Every now and then I piece more history together that is relevant to today. My most recent discovery is the Pink Swastika. I downloaded it, and I’m about half-way through. I would suggest that you check it out -or get an abbreviated introduction to it through Dr. Judith Reisman here.

From Page 10:

It must be clarified-The Nazis were not Right-Wing Conservative Creationists: they were Left-Wing Darwinian Evolutionary Socialists.

The idiots who come here calling me names for my views should read that sentence over a couple of times. It is the leftwing ideologues who are spouting the Nazi rhetoric…there are no similarities between Christian Creationist Capitalists and Left-wing Evolutionary Socialists.

What are the similarities between Nazi Germany and America today? Euthanasia, abortion, special rules for different groups (racism or ‘affirmative action’), and support for homosexuality.

p.15:

American civilization rests on the basic principles of Christian morality, which have their origin in the Hebrew scriptures. The reason why the Nazis first attacked the Jewish people and swore to exterminate them physically and spiritually is because the teachings of the bible, both the Torah and the New Testament, represent the foundations on which the whole system of Christian ethics rests. Remove the Bible as the constellation that guides the American Ship of State and the whole edifice of American civilization collapses.

What is the most important part of this? That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

p. 21: At our founding we were the only nation, among many autocratically-governed states, which truly offered and guaranteed freedom of thought and expression. Our founding fathers attempted to write our inestimably precious freedoms in stone because they foresaw (indeed, it was gong on even then) that there would be an incessant drift back to the power-in-the-hands-of-a-few school of thought. How far have we drifted today, and what does this mean for the behavioral fringe groups of our society (just as the Nazis were a behavioral fringe group of theirs), who feel compelled to re-shape American hearts and minds to resemble their own?

Very good question. This is about authoritarianism, of that there can be no doubt; the people like Cindy Sheehan, who have no problem talking about throwing all the right-wingers in jail. Ideologically speaking, she’s not that far away from her Nazi brothers, or the Islamofascists of the Bin Laden variety. There are some odd parallels with that thinking here, too…the idea of -women are for breeding, men are for pleasure’.

History discloses that most war like nations are those whose male leaders were the most addicted to sexual relations with young boys. (p.11).

What is spelled out in the book is a horrifying detailed account of the homosexuals in Hitler’s inner circle, and charges that Hitler was in fact a male prostitute early in his bohemian artist career. The Nazis did, in fact, meet in a gay bar….

The political agenda which has as its focus a plan to legalize and coerce a bewildered and unsuspecting public into accepting or regarding sodomy as normal or dignified, is based on falsehood, self-deception, and skewed scientific research.

That would be the Kinsey research that began our ’sexual revolution’. Kinsey was a pervert who circumcized himself in a bathtub with a pocketknife. He was a sadomasochist who performed experiments on children that had them screaming and fainting, and which he took down in notes as ‘pleasure.’ One of the infants was only 2 months old.

In light of the medical record, history and the fact that sodomy represents a corruption of the natural and moral orders of creation, any positive affirmation of homosexuality is totally without merit. Human sexuality is never merely a physical concern, nor is it a purely private matter. It always has social implications. What goes on between partners influences society as a whole. In sexual matters, the issue is “what is advocated and what is practiced publicly” far more than what happens privately.(p.11).

It’s spelled out in the book what the ramifications were - one interesting point that was brought out was two homosexual factions - the ‘butch’ faction and the ‘fem’ faction. The “Butch” homosexuals were those that engaged in pederasty and found positions in the SS, and in the Hitler Youth where they found opportunities to sodomize young boys.

As they were during the Weimar period, 1918-1933, psychiatry and academia have been hijacked and pressed into the service of establishing homosexualism as the basis of a new Kultur. Professor Hans Blueher, a practicing physician whose specialty was psychiatry, was accepted by the Nazis as the apostle and higher authority of a new social order. Blueher’s school held that male homosexual lovemaking is in itself a good thing and spiritually energizing. Blueher’s teaching became popular in Nazi circles during the period between the two World Wars and promoted the idea that a well-regulated ritual of homosexualism was a unique force capable of creating the State and assuring its leadership. The resulting creed relegated women to a purely biological function and eliminated the family as a constituent cell in the community.

This is also a marxist philosophy; where the family unit is broken down, the government raises the children, women are passed around like a 6-pack of beer, and the sexes no longer trust one another. You can see that happening across the country today; one example is the much publicized case between Alec Baldwin and his ex-wife, Kim Bassinger-and the much publicized example of parental alienation.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association was also hijacked by American “gay” activists. Basing its decision largely on the skewed evidence of the 1948 Kinsey report Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, the APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistics Manual and declared it a normal variant of human sexuality. Homosexuals, sensing that the burden of change had been lifted form them and shifted onto society, were able to present themselves as innocent victims of what they referred to as society’s bigoted and “homophobic” attitudes towards them as persons.

Which is disingenuous mudslinging. But it has the effect that they’re looking for-silencing any opposition.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer, in Defining Deviancy Up,” an essay published in the November 22, 1993 edition of the New Republic (pages 20ff), in describing the real effect of the APA decision, stated that a majority of society was made deviant while homosexuality was elevated to the status of normal. Krauthammer writes, “as part of the vast social project of moral levelling, it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized. The normal must be found to be deviant.” In fact, the greatest single victory of the “gay” agenda over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they are seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than attacking specific antisocial behavior.

Taking it off the list of psychiatric disorders, not because of new science, but for political reasons, changed the scope of the public debate.

Victim-plunder ideology is at the core of “gay political strategy. Homosexualists exploit the public status of homosexuals to impose their new definition of human sexuality upon society. “Victim ideology” and “reductionist” thinking is destroying America from within. Today’s new victims see no reason to modify their own behavior. Victim psychology and philosophies undermine the legitimate workings of government and justice, health and social systems. Like their Nazi predecessors, today’s homosexualists lack any scruples. Homosexuality is primarly a predatory addiction striving to take the weak and unsuspecting down with it. The “gay” agenda is a colossal fraud’ a gigantic robbery of the mind. Homosexuals of the type described in this book have no true idea of how to act in the best interests of their country and fellow man. Their intention is to serve none but themselves.

As Keyes said, it’s ’selfish hedonism’.

Dr. Reisman:

The Storm Troopers and the Gestapo were schooled in what the authors call the “Hellenistic” Greek ideal of man-youth pedagogy. Concerned about the man-boy aspect of homosexuality, the Pink Swastika connects-the-dots for readers from the homosexual power structure in Germany to the current social debate in the United States. The naked, copulatory San Francisco “gay rights” parades, the violent homosexual burning of buildings when Governor Pete Wilson originally refused gay minority rights, the bullying attcks on Cardinal O’Conner and former HHS Secretary Louis Sullivan and scores of others, note the authors, are a replay of the homoerotic Nazis. (Reisman, p. 9)

All heady, but fascinating reading. The book version of the Pink Swastika shows some pictures of Hitler and his ‘band of merry men’.

We’re also reminded not only of the relatively well-known-Goering dressing up in drag and wearing camp makeup, but of others, such as Karl Fischer (a homosexual teacher) who began the Wandervogel (a German version of the boy scouts), which became the Hitler Youth in 1933, and another pederast, Hans Bluher, who wrote of man-boy love, the predecessor of today’s American NAMBLA - the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

After a long debate, the Continental Congress finally reached a decision. They voted to declare independence from Britain on July 2, 1776. The next night, John Adams returned to his rooming house to write two of the most famous letters in American history by candlelight.

Addressing his wife Abigail, he noted the birth of a new nation.

Read John Adams’ Independence Day messages here
by Michael Medved at Townhall.

In a prior letter to (his wife) Abigail (in 1775), Adams went even further in emphasizing the association of patriotism and religiosity – a connection maintained with interruption from his time to our own. “Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand,” he wrote. “A patriot must be a religious man.”

With his words in mind, it makes sense for so many churches to sponsor special July 4 th programs, and to emphasize the always appropriate messages of “God bless America” and “America, America, God shed his grace on thee.” The last verse of “The Star Spangled Banner” contains the lines – “And triumph we must/As our cause it is just/And this may our motto/”In God is our trust.”

May we observe our nation’s founding in the spirit of our founders – combining celebration with solemnity, and expressing our devotion to God and to country.

Also, Rick Moran is ‘liveblogging’ the Continental Congress! starting July 2nd, 1776, and he has a second post up from July 3, 1776. I enjoy Rick’s blog, particularly when it comes to historical remembrances such as Washington’s birthday, the 4th of July and other memorable dates throughout history; he reminds us of things we should more often remember.

Have a pleasant 4th of July, but while doing so, remember those who’ve stood and today are standing in harm’s way, who’ve sacrificed so much for the noble ideas of our predecessors that we celebrate today. God bless. Have a happy and safe 4th of July.

This interesting letter was found in the national archives in a collection called “The General’s papers”. It written in Lincoln’s own hand, on the War Department’s letterhead.

It demonstrates Lincoln’s optimism that the war could be concluded quickly, but it continued for over a year after this note was written.

The note from Lincoln to Maj. Gen. Henry Halleck was written on July 7, 1863, four days after the defeat of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and three days after the city of Vicksburg on the Mississippi River fell to Union forces. Reuters

On 19 April 1775, at Lexington and Concord, American heroes fired the opening volley for American liberty. Our modern day counterparts to the heroes of yesteryear are those who bravely continue in that tradition now, shouldering the immense burden of American liberty on the warfront with Jihadistan.

Concord Hymn
Ralph Waldo Emerson

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, are sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

On 18 april 1775, the military governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, dispatched a force from Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord, and to capture Patriot rebels Samuel Adams and John Hancock at Lexington. Luckily, the Patriots anticipated that move.

In advance, Paul Revere had arranged for warning, though he was captured.

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” —Patrick Henry

Patriot allies William Dawes and Samuel Prescott continued the midnight ride for 22 miles from Boston’s Old North Church to Concord and warned militiamen along the way.

As dawn arrived on 19 April, between 50 and 70 militiamen came to the town green at Lexington to confront the British column. When a few links away from the militia column, the British officer swung his sword, and said, “Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men. Fire!” Several Patriots were killed and wounded, but none had been ordered to return fire.

However, when the British arrived at Concord’s Old North Bridge, American “Minutemen” fired the “shot heard round the world” as Emerson notes above.

That was the beginning of an eight-year struggle for American independence, a beginning we honor as Patriots Day.

From the Patriot Post.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

At TWA, we’re having a discussion in comments about the environmentalists and Global warming, and as usual, I refer to the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research. I am naturally ridiculed, as leftists start with their wailing using some communist’s words about Christianity being the opiate of the people, and that ICR’s PHDs can’t be considered scientists because they utter the word “God” and quote the Bible.

Romans 12:2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. - King James Version
How little people recall of history. I referred in three separate posts, back in 2004 when I first started blogging, to an article written by Joseph Wolverton II, called “the Founders and the Classics“. In part, Wolverton discusses the magnitude of what they learned; and the intensity of their studies, what was stressed that learned at a very young age, including the Bible, at the Ivy League Schools so many of them attended.

Alexander Hamilton’s alma mater, King’s College (now Columbia), had similarly stringent prerequisites for prospective students. Applicants were required to “give a rational account of the Greek and Latin grammars, read three orations of Cicero and three books of Virgil’s Aeneid, and translate the first 10 chapters of John from Greek into Latin.”

Can you imagine? Columbia University, in the 1700’s, taught the Bible.

Our founders’ curriculum was stunning in comparison to what students today carry in terms of a workload in the classroom, but let me point out a couple of things. First, the founders supported the use of the Bible in public schools as a text book.

The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools. [T]he Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life. . . . [It] should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.[56]

Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment

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 there exhibited…. What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be. I have examined all [religions]… and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.

John Adams

[T]he Bible…. [is] a book containing the history of all men and of all nations and… [is] a necessary part of a polite education.

Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress; U.S. Diplomat; Selected as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention

The Bible itself [is] the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world.

Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Father of American Jurisprudence

To a man of liberal education, the study of history is not only useful, and important, but altogether indispensable, and with regard to the history contained in the Bible . . . “it is not so much praiseworthy to be acquainted with as it is shameful to be ignorant of it.”

John Quincy Adams

And secondly, they themselves studied the bible and could translate it back and forth between the original texts and English and back again, and in different tenses. The Bible, in fact, was used as a text book in public schools until the 60’s, and about 10 years later, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off its list of emotional disorders. And it wasn’t because of newly discovered science to the contrary, it was because of lobbying gay activists.

Leftists, unfortunately, are not interested at all in facts or history, they’re just interested in their attacks on us as though that’s going to force us to shut up. We should send them some polish so they can shine up their jackboots.

This environmental bs began with the scare over nuclear weapons around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962, we were probably the closest ever to nuclear war between the superpowers, but a year later, the US and Soviet Union signed the Limited Test Ban prohibiting all nuclear tests in the atmosphere and oceans. This could be the first international law ever passed that prohibited environmental pollution.

During the ’60’s, the fusing of the civil rights and peace movements with environmental activism took place; it wasn’t just a ‘revolution’ because the Beatles sang about it. Victor Scheffer points out that there is a natural affinity between peace and civil rights activists and the environmental movement, because both movements appeal to people with strong egalitarian sympathies.

e·gal·i·tar·i·an /ɪˌgælɪˈtɛəriən/ Pronunciation[i-gal-i-tair-ee-uhn] –adjective
1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.

In other words, the egalitarians believe in artificially ‘evening’ the playing field through taxation ande other means in order to promote what George Soros would call an “open society”. We’ve seen what these ideas promote in other countries; Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and although they’ve miserably failed elsewhere, it doesn’t seem to stop these people from pushing this onto those who they think they can control and rule over. We conservatives, on the other hand, believe in equality in terms of hard work; if you put in your time, you’ll get the reward; unlike communism which takes the incentive for hard work away because you never see the fruits of your labor.

It drifted from ‘conservation’ to ‘environmentalism’: First, in the late 60’s and early 70’s, peace and civil rights movements and the second in the late 80’s and it continues into the present. Militant environmental lobbying groups including Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, were born in the 60’s, and old line conservation groups like the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Foundation and the Audubon Society fell in line with the radicalization. During the 70’s, environmentalists began to voice their interest in other issues when environmental issues waned.

The activism inspired by the real possibility of a nuclear holoaust served as the training ground for what we see now; the apocalyptic environmentalists who scream that the sky is falling with this crap over global warming.

“The politicization of science; the revolving doors between government agencies in charge of environmental affairs and environmental advocacy groups; the symbiotic relationship among activists, the press, and politicians, all of whom thrive on a crisis atmosphere; the massive propaganda campaigns involving public schools, church organizations and civic clubs, the call for massive government intervention and international control–all were policies and strategies developed and refined first by antinuclear and peace activists.

For instance, New Left peace activism and environmentalism were combined in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS emerged from a one-day research strike and teach-in at MIT in March 1969. During the MIT strike, faculty and students discussed the atomic bomb, the Vietnam War, and the world food crisis. The UCS’s founding ‘faculty document’ called on scientists and engineers to ‘devise means for turning research applications away from the present overemphasis on military technolgoy towards the solution of pressing environmental and social problems’.”

EcoScam, The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, by Ronald Bailey, pages 34 and 35.

It just goes to show that what’s happening today is just an extension of what has been at work for a long time in engineering and science; which my dad, who is an MIT-educated engineer, is fully aware.

Hell, Michael Moore is a self-proclaimed GREEN activist, and he put together Fahrenheit 9/11, the shlockumentary about the Iraq war.

The “Greenhouse effect” is actually a misnomer; greenhouses keep warm by preventing outside breezes from cooling the air inside them, not by trapping and reradiating heat.

Ecoscam, page 143.

“Attempting to predict the behavior of the earth’s climate, some climatologists have created complicated computer models, called General Circulation Models (CCMs). Today, the leading climate models calculate that doubling carbon dioxide to 600 parts per million should increase average global temperatures between 1.5C and 4.5C degrees (2.2f and 8.1F degrees). Note that the higher figure is very close to the values calculated by Arrhenius a century earlier. However, recent projections made by German and British GGMs lowered predicted global warming to only 1.8 to 3.4 (1 to 1.9C) degrees.

The models are far from perfect-they must be ‘tuned’ in order to achieve global warming.

Ecoscam, page 145.

So there’s plenty of evidence from a lot of scientists that question the theory of global warming, and the impact it would make if we would stop contributing the evil ‘greenhouse gases’ they’re screaming about. It’s not only the ICR scientists, but it’s all scientists who are interested in science, and who aren’t being paid government grant money to skew results so they can get more government money. We’ve moved over into a time when people who know the right people or who do the right thing are rewarded with amazing sums of money and cars, and government-paid vacations. We have entered the time when honesty in politics is something that we don’t even expect. And unfortunately, we’ve also entered a time when the word ‘progressive’ in terms of taxes and other things, is commonplace, even though some of us know that communism and socialism can’t be sold by their brand names yet. Progressive is synonymous with socialism and/or communism. And please, don’t correct me, because as Marx and Engels pointed out, socialism is a predecessor to communism; that’s the plan. And what’s also the plan is that the democrats would work alongside them to accomplish their goals.

X Posted at The Wide Awakes

Thanks to:

The Pink Flamingo

The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

Basil

Bullwinkle

Adam’s Blog

Pirate’s Cove

Woman Honor Thyself

Stuck On Stupid

The Hill Chronicles

Phastidio

Dumb Ox Daily News

Right Voices

The Amboy Times

The World According to Carl

High Desert Wanderer

Renaissance Blogger

Blue Star Chronicles

Diary of a Mad Pigeon

stikNstein….has no mercy

Third World County

Church and State

Stop the ACLU

tip o’ me tam to Jay at Stop the ACLU

Veteran’s Day, the Marine’s birthday and their traditional Birthday Ball, and Voting Day all fell in the same week this week. This is a poignant thought-because both our elected officials and our military take an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

The first law was enacted by Congress in 1789; statute 1, chapter 1: an act which sought to put structure around administering oaths; that all civilian and military officials standing in service of our nation would take this oath. The security of our Republic depended on leaders who would honor and uphold constitutional rule of law, lest the Republic dissolve into a democratic state ruled by men. This our Founders well understood.

The oath makes mandatory by law, the support and defense of our Constitution, revered for its timeless precepts, crisp and clear language. The oath refers to our Constitution precisely as it was ratified, not the so called “living constitution” rewritten by judicial activists, who populate what Thomas Jefferson predicted would become “the despotic branch”.

From The Oath of Office, A Historical Guide to Moral Leadership by Lt Col Kenneth Keskel, USAF

One finds numerous oaths among the traditions of our nation. Before commissioning or enlisting, every military officer candidate and enlistee recites an oath. The President takes an Oath before assuming office. Even Senators, congressmen, judges, and other government officials take oaths of office. New citizens of the United States take a naturalization oath. Many schoolchildren take an oath or Pledge Allegiance to the flag. Although its members are not required to swear or affirm before going into combat, the US military developed a code of conduct to guide servicemen. When an officer is promoted, the promotion ceremony often includes a re-statement of the officer’s oath.

The military officer’s oath is a combination of Constitutional requirement, historical influence, and centuries-old custom. To better appreciate the oath, one must understand its history.

Some have ventured to suggest that Congressmen and Senators should abandon the age old tradition of taking an oath. Moreover, that it is ‘outdated’. Activist judges and atheist activists such as Newdow have forced upon us the notion that saying the pledge of Allegiance in school is unconstitutional. This is absurd; bringing up our children to revere and respect the respectable precepts of our Founders merely results in a civilian population with common experiences and a stronger moral fiber. These opponents of the spirit of our founding documents have also advised that our President, when taking his oath, should not lay his hand on the Bible, and the inaugural ceremony should not include a prayer. Hence, we are witnessing a chain of events and a polarization between American citizens who at one time in the not-so-distant past, understood the value of standing together, and upholding the founding documents and honorable traditions of our republic. Worse, we are seeing a trend of politicans who have no remorse for undignified dishonest dealings in their public lives. This is a reflection on, not only the deterioration of our republic, but our nation morphing into a ‘democracy’. We need only look at Roman history to see what awaits us in our future if these unfortunate trends continue.

From the Patriot Post:

Veterans support and defend our Constitution with their lives, while most elected officials debase it with all manner of extra-constitutional empowerment of the central government, and forced income redistribution to benefit the constituency groups which re-elect them. That is to say, while veterans have nobly honored their oath, most elected officials have disgracefully violated it.

In recent months, we have been swamped with ugly politics. This week, we saw the whirlwind that an ostensibly conservative political party reaps when it abandons its oath of office and platform. If Republicans thought they could retain majorities in the legislative branch by offering themselves as the lesser of two evils, they were sorely, grossly, terribly mistaken. They overestimated conservative tolerance for those who desert their oaths.

By contrast in honor of Veterans Day, consider the stories of many American who never violated their oaths. Consider, for example, the story of Jack Idema and Brent Bennett; who have been shamefully abandoned by the government they swore to defend and protect.

Let us ne’er forget.

Every time Nathan Bradfield posts something at The Wide Awakes, we get an onslaught from some pretty serious lefties who are determined, like Newdow, to erase our Judeao-Christian heritage from view. The communist ideology, you see, has little to do with Christianity or Judaism; it strives to crush it.

From the Help Save America website:

In 1892 our Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States said, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…This is a religious people.
This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation…we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth…These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” The Supreme Court studied this for 10 years before writing this unanimous decision which clearly states that we are not a pluralistic, but we are a Christian nation.

In 1931, in the case of United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 the court said, “We are a Christian people…according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.”

In 1952 the Supreme Court, in the case of Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 307 313 stated: “We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being…When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

In 1963 the Supreme Court, in the case of School District of Abington Township v Schempp, 374 U.S. 203,212,225 pp.21, 71, records: “The State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”

In 1980, the Supreme Court, in the case of Stone v. Grahamn, 449 U.S. 39,42,46 said: “The Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like.”

In 1993. In the case of Jones v Clear Creek Independent School District, 977, F.2d 963,972 (5th Cir.), upheld the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision permitting student-initiated prayer at high school graduation ceremonies, providing a majority of the class votes to do so. “There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”

Look for the Ten Commandments on the walls of the Supreme Court. They are represented by the shape of the Tablets.

When you visit Washington, DC, and our Supreme Court look for the Ten Commandments on the walls of the Supreme Court. They are represented by the shape of the Tablets.

The historical revisionism in which they fervently engage cannot erase these truths.

“Oyez, Oyez, Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and the Honorable Court.”

What you just read is what the Justices hear as they stand behind their desks while the crier announces the formal opening of each session of the Court. As the justices take their seat the crier’s voice is raised as he impressively calls out the above, “Oyez…God save the United States and the Honorable Court.”

Engraved in stone above the head of the Chief Justice are the Ten Commandments with the great American eagle protecting them. Underneath are these words regarding Moses who is holding the Ten Commandments: “Lawgiver of the Israelites, His Mosaic Law, which is based on the tablets of Hebraic Law, or the Ten Commandments, determined the criminal code and liturgical law.” (Per letter from Religious Freedom Survey by Donald E. Wildmon, AFA Pres., PO Drawer 2440, Tupelo, MI, ,38803 9/97. Page 595 of America’s God and Country Encyclopedia Of Quotations, by Wm. J. Federer, Fame Pub.,Coppell, TX)).
Moses is included among the great lawgivers in Herman A. MacNeil’s marble sculpture group on the east front. Other Christian symbols are portrayed in the courtroom and on the buildings exterior.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.” - Thomas Jefferson

Senator Byrd (1918 -1966) said that the above words of Jefferson were “a forceful and explicit warning that to remove God from this country will destroy it.” (p. 85 of America’s God & Country Encyclopedia of Quotations)

We think of the first ten amendments in the constitution aka the bill of rights - as the part of the constitution which not only defines, but guarantees our precious freedom. But the framers treated habeas corpus as even more fundamental than that; it was written into the Constitution’s first article.

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
–U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9

I’m trying to grasp what President Bush has done with this Military Commission’s Act of 2006. What this thing does is not suspend habeas corpus. It gets rid of it altogether.

In The Federalist, Number 84, Alexander Hamilton wrote; “arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny.” All those freedoms that we take for granted; the right to assemble, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all the rest-are nothing if the government can lock you up for any reason-real or imagined, perhaps without naming any charge at all.

Habeas corpus’ protections are designed to prevent government tyranny by providing a judicial check and balance on the government’s power to imprison. “Habeas corpus”, translated fromt he latin, means “you have the body”. It means “show us the body”. A writ of habeas corpus commands the court that the jailor, the keeper of the body, produce it, (the prisoner), at a particular time, generally to show just cause for limiting that person’s liberty.

This is all about prisoners having the right to their day in court, but during times of ‘rebellion’ or ‘invasion’, habeas corpus has been suspended before. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. And the governor of Hawaii relied on the ‘invasion’ exception to suspend it after Pearl Harbor.

Prior to England’s Magna Carta (1215), there were limits on England’s royal power, a lesson our founders drew from in writing the Constitution. “The Great Charter” demanded a similar defense of individual liberty;

“No free man may be taken or imprisoned, or ousted of his lands, or outlawed, or banished, or hurt in any way . . . except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

The Supreme Court has maintained that the writ of habeas corpus is “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.”

Now most people who aren’t criminals or who’ve never been arrested probably aren’t concerned about this serious alteration to our founding document which will happen with this Military Commission’s Act of 2006. But consider now how you could be arrested for the most minor infraction; or even a perceived infraction; or just for BREATHING, and you would have absolutely no recourse. Gone is your right to trial, gone is your right to petition the court for any reason. You can be held indefinitely and have no rights at all. You are completely at the mercy of the government, which could very easily lock you up and throw away the key for the rest of your life, if it wanted to.

So now we get to the key reason this is so disturbing from my point of view; the case of Jack Idema in Afghanistan. Over two years ago Jack and his men filed a habeas corpus petition, asking the US government why they are being held there. It is not the Afghans who are holding them; it is at the behest of the American government and they are categorized as political prisoners. In fact, it says it on their prison ID cards.

This brings up several questions. First, how can the American government go after Azzam the American for joining Al Qaeda and calling it treason on the one hand for conspiring against the United States, while simultaneously incarcerating Jack Idema for fighting the Al Qaeda and the Taliban and rounding up terrorists? Is Jack Idema considered an enemy combatant along with the likes of Jose Padilla who joined Al Qaeda? It doesn’t make sense. In essence, I suppose it means if you have the balls to fight for your country, the message is, your country will pay you back with prison time. We’ve seen this in the case of the Pendleton 8 and others, but now it makes more sense with this Military Commission’s Act of 2006 about to go in effect.

Next, it would appear that Jack Idema now has absolutely no recourse to find out why he’s in prison, because habeas corpus no longer exists once the Military Commission’s Act of 2006 is signed. Although I don’t see how he qualifies for this under the ‘definitions’ outlined. This is how the American government can get away with not responding to his petition for over two years, although it would seem it’s too little too late. The rules to the game may change once Bush signs this document, but those weren’t the rules then. But the government can obviously do whatever it wants; no one is held responsible, no one has to answer for this even though it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, it doesn’t have to. Habeas Corpus and the entire bill of rights has been dashed. And we are left with…nothing. Idema will be in a government-imposed limbo now, with absolutely no recourse. He will be unable to come home, presumably, because the government can pick him up at the airport and imprison him without any explanation. Over the past 2+ years it’s obvious that that’s where they want him to stay.

Overreaction during wartime is nothing new, if you look at past administrations. A president will almost always choose to violate individual rights over the risk of losing a war, presuming ‘the good of the many over the needs of a few’. However, once the situation passed, things were returned back to normal. The French threatened American sovereignty on the high seas in 1798, John Adams in turn supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, a bold move which punished free speech as traitorous. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus when the civil war broke out in 1861, (the rule giving citizens a right to take their grievances to court). Woodrow Wilson, during WWI, allowed officials to prosecute anyone for criticizing the government. Franklin Roosevelt allowed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, during WWII, to promiscuously wiretap, and ordered Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps. During the Vietnam War, as domestic dissent arose, Richard Nixon cited his Democratic predecessors FDR and Lyndon Johnson and authorized bugging and wiretapping against domestic “subversives.” But it should be noted that none of these steps made the nation markedly any safer.

In view of the situation in Afghanistan (it’s lost to the Taliban), and the fact that the one terrorist fighter who could have captured and/or killed bin Laden is in prison and the teams who were assembled to find him have been dismantled, I frankly don’t agree with this move to get rid of habeas corpus. Jack Idema was imprisoned before this Military Commission’s Act of 2006 was signed–years before. His petition still deserves an answer. Although the law said it should have been answered in 30 days. What is mystifying to me is…Jack Idema doesn’t fit into the definition of an ‘alien enemy combatant’, which this legislation cites.

But the time to have ’suspended’ habeas corpus would have been immediately after 9/11, not some 5 years later. We may be losing the war in Afghanistan, but I see little if any value in suspending habeas corpus now. And it should have been ’suspend’ it, not ‘kill’ it. For all intensive purposes, habeas corpus will be KILLED due to this Military Commission’s Act of 2006.

Jose Padilla joined Al Qaeda and is fulfills the definition of “enemy combatant”. Jack Idema does not. I don’t believe that someone who joins forces with those who want to destroy America get the same privileges as American citizens who are honorably fighting in this conflict. Leftist lawyers are going to bat en massse for terrorists like Jose Padilla, but very few are coming out and speaking up for Jack Idema.

See this previous post on MSNBC’s Keith Olberman’s presentation on what this means also.

“Although it was celebrated as early as 1778, and by the early 19th Century was second only to the Fourth of July as a patriotic holiday, Congress did not officially recognize Washington’s Birthday as a national holiday until 1870. The Monday Holiday Law in 1968—applied to executive branch departments and agencies by Richard Nixon’s Executive Order 11582 in 1971—moved the holiday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. Section 6103 of Title 5, United States Code, currently designates that legal federal holiday as ‘Washington’s Birthday.’ Contrary to popular opinion, no action by Congress or order by any President has changed ‘Washington’s Birthday’ to ‘President’s Day’.”~Matthew Spaulding, a Heritage Foundation scholar

In honor of and due respect for our first and one of our greatest–if not THE GREATEST President, arguably, our history’s most outstanding Patriot, here are two of my favorite quotes from George Washington which best embody his dedication to liberty and God. The first from his First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789, and the second from his Farewell Address, 19 September 1796.

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American People.”

Ahhh. The republican model of government. Would that more people remember that was the original intention of our forefathers–not democracy!

“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.”

Just imagine…Religion and morality are indispensable supports! Even Napoleon said that “In war, moral factors acount for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter. ” ~and today, I believe this is the case in whatever situation we find ourselves in.

ON WASHINGTON

“His example is now complete, and it will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read.” —John Adams, Message to the U.S. Senate, 19 December 1799

Unfortunately, there are revisionist historians actively re-writing what men like Washington accomplished, however, and it is a deep concern to me.

“First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes of private life. Pious, just, humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform, dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting… Correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence and virtue always felt his fostering hand. The purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues… Such was the man for whom our nation mourns.” —Official eulogy of Washington, written by John Marshall and delivered by Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee III, 26 December 1799

Can we say that ‘purity of private character’ is a trait which our modern day public servants display? Disappointingly, it is not.

“Perhaps the strongest feature in his character was prudence, never acting until every circumstance, every consideration, was maturely weighed; refraining if he saw a doubt, but when once decided, going through with his purpose, whatever obstacles opposed. His integrity was pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known, no motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, being able to bias his decision. He was, indeed, in every sense of the words, a wise, a good, and a great man.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Walter Jones, 2 January 1814

It’s a shame, but looking around the vast legacy of our forefathers, our country and its people do not even faintly resemble the honorable people and honorable statesmen that once held our public trust and I consider much of this due to moral relevancy, no sense of duty or honor, and the rapid deterioration of the family, old fashioned values and faith in God.

Founding Fathers’ Wisdom

Surely the people who wrote and signed the Constitution of the United States of America can be trusted to tell us what it means. Original letters written in their own words give us a much truer understanding of their intentions than third party commentaries written a hundred years later.

Listen to the original writers, especially when new historians contradict the original intent of those original authors of the law of this great land.

Those letters and speeches made by the Signers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are available through this network.

You can download more complete information files to your computer and read them at your leisure.

Please feel free to share them with your friends. The purpose of this is to spread the truth and give understanding of the truth, so that our children and our children’s children can live by the truth.

LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He reaffirmed faith towards Almighty God as Creator of mankind.

In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration. Those expressed values are of God and from God.

The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote it. John Jay applied it as law while he was the first Chief Justice of our Supreme Court.

Fisher Ames, the same man who wrote the First Amendment, also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America’s classrooms.

John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.

The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that “education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.”

An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed the Founder’s lack of pluralistic intent when it declared: “Christianity …was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”

” You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.” George Washington

” Let…statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by…educating their little boys and girls…and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” Samuel Adams

“History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion…and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Benjamin Franklin

“Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation.” John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT

“The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.” John Quincy Adams

A page of history is worth a volume of logic. History shows the intent and purpose of our founding fathers. Contemporary logic is wrong whenever it contradicts the clear explanations of those men who wrote the Constitution.

97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools.

187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible.

Noah Webster wrote the dictionary with Bible verses explained so children could understand the words of God and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Webster even wrote a translation of the Bible for the American speaking people.

You could hardly find a school in America that wasn’t Christian based with the Bible as its main text book until the 1830’s. As a result of the attack upon children learning the truths of God and Salvation, the American Sunday School League was formed during that same decade so those children who were deprived could still get Bible knowledge.

Fewer and fewer people remembered the exhortations of those men who established this nation to follow Christ and give Christian teaching in the schools, as the backbone and main course of our schools.

The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase “protection of divine providence”.
Five to those who can admit the phrase “created equal” means created by God, not evolved from chaos.

Contrary to what is currently taught at most federal and state schools, Samuel Adams pointed out this strong lesson which is contradicted in courts today: “Before the formation of this Constitution…this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has NEVER been disannuled.”

The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence declared within it their undying faith towards God for all generations to see and follow.

The Articles of Incorporation call the entity into existence and the By-laws then explain how it will be governed. Therefore the governing of the corporation under its by-laws must always be within the purposes and framework set forth in its Articles. The By-laws may neither nullify nor supersede the Articles. The Constitution neither abolished nor replaced what the Declaration had established; it only provided the specific details of how American government would operate under the principles set forth in the Declaration.

PROOF of the Declaration being attached to the Constitution is found in Article VII .
The Constitution attaches itself to the Declaration by dating itself as being signed in the twelfth year of the independence of the United States of America! Now that proves the founding fathers considered themselves to have been living in the United States of America for twelve years under the government document of the Declaration of Independence. Not only was the Constitution dated in recognition of the Declaration of Independence, also the later government acts were dated from the Independence of the United States of America.

“The Jubilee of the Constitution” by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That’s why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building. Those men saw the law of God as the basis of all law for all men always, never to be changed! How can we withhold God and His truth from our educational classrooms for children today? One Nation Under God. United we stand together with Christ.

They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children’s children: for all men who would pursue life, liberty, and happiness…they pointed us to God and to His Son Jesus Christ. They desired that their posterity might look again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew that battle which their fathers began, so that truth, justice, mercy, and all Christian virtue not be extinguished from the schools of this land.

Support and help this work go forward. Make a donation. One dollar or more. Do not despise the day of small things. Your gift, even of a dollar, can help and encourage. If you liked what you see here, and want others to see it, pitch in and help with a dollar or more. Thank you, and God bless you.

There are several books out right now on the original intent of the founding fathers of this great nation. One is by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Rheinquist. Another is by David Barton from Wallbuilders Publishing,

Why are these books so necessary for us to read? Because few of us ever heard the whole story of what the founding fathers of this nation originally intended.

When they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they had a far different understanding than what the current Supreme Court is saying. There are lawyers today passing out literature on how the Supreme Court is running away with power and needs to be stopped. The Supreme Court rulings have done damage to the original intent of the law of this land. Those books listed above will inform you the extent of those changes.

A priority effort right now is to provide historical information from documents, letters, and speeches of the Founding Fathers of America to local school teachers and school children and pastors of churches. I have done the ressearch, read dozens of books, viewed several videos, and made summaries of much of that information. Packages of ten page summaries of various topics are available. You can get them on computer disk and print them out yourself. You can copy them to your heart’s content. Just help get this information into the schools.

Sources for your own library are listed below. More will be added as time allows.
Please indicate your response with e-mail to larry@christianparents.com
Phone 940-766-3919

Wallbuilder Press, P.O. Box 397, Aledo, Tx 76008 Phone 817-441-6044

Original Intent, by David Barton, 1996

Texas Eagle Forum, publishes the Torch monthly, texaseagle.org on the world wide web

Reclaiming a Nation at Risk, by Brannon House

The Rewriting of America’s History by Catherine Millard

The Dumbing Down of Our Children

That should apply to American citizens who do the same thing, don’t you think?

Steven and Virginia Pearcy put up a soldier in effigy on the house they rent out in Sacramento, California with a sign on it that says “Bush lied, I died”.

When confronted on whether he hopes all the soldiers over there are killed Steve was shown on video saying sarcastically “of course I hope they die, I hope they all die”.

This is an open trackback post for Thanksgiving. Please trackback with your Thanksgiving posts here.

STATE OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
IN COMMITTEE of SAFETY,
EXETER, November 1, 1782.

ORDERED,
THAT the following Proclamation for a general THANKSGIVING on the twenty-eighth day of November [instant?], received from the honorable Continental Congress, be forthwith printed, and sent to the several worshipping Assemblies in this State, to whom it is recommended religiously to observe said day, and to abstain from all servile labour thereon.
M. WEARE, President.

By the United States in Congress assembled.

PROCLAMATION.

IT being the indispensable duty of all Nations, not only to offer up their supplications to ALMIGHTY GOD, the giver of all good, for his gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner to give him praise for his goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of his providence in their behalf: Therefore the United States in Congress assembled, taking into their consideration the many instances of divine goodness to these States, in the course of the important conflict in which they have been so long engaged; the present happy and promising state of public affairs; and the events of the war, in the course of the year now drawing to a close; particularly the harmony of the public Councils, which is so necessary to the success of the public cause; the perfect union and good understanding which has hitherto subsisted between them and their Allies, notwithstanding the artful and unwearied attempts of the common enemy to divide them; the success of the arms of the United States, and those of their Allies, and the acknowledgment of their independence by another European power, whose friendship and commerce must be of great and lasting advantage to these States:—– Do hereby recommend to the inhabitants of these States in general, to observe, and request the several States to interpose their authority in appointing and commanding the observation of THURSDAY the twenty-eight day of NOVEMBER next, as a day of solemn THANKSGIVING to GOD for all his mercies: and they do further recommend to all ranks, to testify to their gratitude to GOD for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience of his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.

Done in Congress, at Philadelphia, the eleventh day of October, in the year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, and of our Sovereignty and Independence, the seventh.
JOHN HANSON, President.
Charles Thomson, Secretary.

PRINTED AT EXETER.

Proclamation and image courtesy of The Library of Congress.

Other Thanksgiving Posts:

Jo’s Cafe

Right on the Right

Robinik

Michelle Malkin