About these ads

Attempting to obey God and follow Jesus Christ our Lord

Constitution

JAN. 16 – Religious Freedom Day ‘- Almighty God hath created the mind free’ Thomas Jefferson

 

American Minute by Bill Federer
“Each year on JANUARY 16, we celebrate Religious Freedom Day in commemoration of the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,”-wrote President George W. Bush in his 2003 Proclamation.

Passed in 1786, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and commemorated on his tombstone.

Did Jefferson intend to limit the public religious expression of students, teachers, coaches, chaplains, schools, organizations and communities?


In his original 1777 draft of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, Jefferson wrote:

“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…tend only to begat habits of hypocrisy and meanness,

and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone….”

President Thomas Jefferson explained in his Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805:

“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.

I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious societies.”

Jefferson explained to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808:

“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from inter-meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…

This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States [10th Amendment]…”

Jefferson continued:

“Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General government…

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines…

Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets.”

In 1776, a year before Jefferson drafted his Statute, another Virginian, George Mason, drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was later revised by James Madison and referred to in his Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785:

“Religion, or the duty we owe to our CREATOR, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence;

and, therefore, that all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,

and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other.”

James Madison made a journal entry, June 12, 1788:

“There is not a shadow of right in the general government to inter-meddle with religion…The subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The government has no jurisdiction over it.”

On June 7, 1789, James Madison introduced the First Amendment in the first session of Congress with the wording:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship.”

James Madison appointed to the Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.


Justice Joseph Story wrote in hisCommentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, Chapter XLIV, “Amendments to the Constitution,” Section 991:

“The real object of the First Amendment was, not to countenance, much less advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.”

Samuel Chase, who had been appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington, wrote in the Maryland case of Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799:

“By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”

FOR A SHORT HISTORY OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, READ BELOW:

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens admitted in Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985:

“At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith.”

When the country began, religious liberty was under each individual Colony’s jurisdiction.

In the decision Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote:

“Groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England…passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies.”

Like dropping a pebble in a pond and the ripples go out, States began to expand religious liberty from the particular Christian denomination that founded each colony to all Protestants, then to Catholics, then to liberal Christian denominations, then to Jews, then to monotheists, then to polytheists.

This process was then continued by the Federal Government to expand “religious” liberty to atheists, pagans, occultic, and eventually to religions which historically have been violently ANTI-Judeo-Christian.

After the Constitution, the States ratified the First Amendment, as well as all Ten Amendments, specifically to limit the new Federal government’s power:

“CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF…”

The word “Congress” meant the Federal Congress.

“Shall make no law” meant the Federal Congress could not introduce, debate, vote on or send to the President any bill respecting an establishment of religion.

The word “respecting” meant “concerning” or “pertaining to.”

It was simply telling the Federal government “HANDS OFF” all religious issues.

When anything regarding religion came before the Federal government, the response was to be that it had no jurisdiction to decide anything on that issue, neither for nor against.

“Establishment” did not mean “acknowledgment.”

“Establishment” did not mean believing in Christianity or believing in God.

Establishment was a clearly understood term.

It meant setting up one particular Christian denomination as the official denomination.

With varying levels of official state endorsement and favoritism, countries typically had some kind of established Church:

England had established the Anglican Church;
Sweden had established the Lutheran Church;
Scotland had established the Church of Scotland;
Holland had established the Dutch Reformed Church;
Russia had established the Russian Orthodox Church;
Serbia had established the Serbian Orthodox Church;
Romania had established the Romanian Orthodox Church;
Greece had established the Greek Orthodox Church;
Bulgaria had established the Bulgarian Orthodox Church;
Finland had established the Finnish Orthodox Church;
Ethiopia had established the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church;
Italy, Spain, France, Poland, Austria, Mexico, Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Vatican City had established the Roman Catholic Church; and
Switzerland had established Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances.

The attitude of the original 13 States was that they did not want the new Federal Government to follow the pattern of most Western nations and pick one denomination with its headquarters in the Capitol.

Allegorically, they did not want a Federal Walmart Church to come into town and put out of business their individual State “mom & pop department store” denominations.

To make the purpose of the First Amendment unquestionably clear, they went on to state that the Federal Congress could not make a law which prohibited “THE FREE EXERCISE” of religion.

Ronald Reagan stated in a Radio Address, 1982:

“Founding Fathers…enshrined the principle of freedom of religion in the First Amendment…

The purpose of that Amendment was to protect religion from the interference of government and to guarantee, in its own words, ‘the free exercise of religion.’”

Like dealing a deck of cards in a card game, the States dealt to the Federal Government jurisdiction over a few things, like providing for the common defense and regulating interstate commerce, but the rest of the cards were held by the States.

Justice Joseph Story wrote in hisCommentaries on the Constitution, 1833:

“The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State Governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State Constitutions.”

Just as today some States allow minors to consume alcohol and other States do not;
some States allow the selling of marijuana and others do not;
some States have smoking bans and others do not;
some States allow gambling and others do not, and
some States allow prostitution (Nevada and formerly Rhode Island) and the rest do not;
at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified some States allowed more religious freedom, such as Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, and other States, such as Connecticut and Massachusetts, did not.

But it was up to the people in each State to decide.

Congressman James Meacham of Vermont gave a House Judiciary Committee report, March 27, 1854:

“At the adoption of the Constitution, we believe every State – certainly ten of the thirteen – provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government.”

When did things change?

Charles Darwin theorized that species could evolve.

This inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve.

This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the case precedent method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 with the original intent to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South.

Activist Justices quickly began to use the 14th Amendment very creatively to take jurisdiction away from the States over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

The freedom of religion was still under each individual State’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

FDR was elected President four times, which led to the 22nd Amendment being passed to limit all future Presidents to only two terms.

During his 12 years in office, FDR concentrated power in the Federal Government to an unprecedented degree.

Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court in 1937.

Justice Hugo Black concentrated power in the Federal government by taking jurisdiction over religion away from each State.

He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a State” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.”

He conveniently ignored innumerable references to and requirements in the various State Constitutions regarding religion.

In a word, he took the handcuffs off the Federal government and placed them on the States.

After this, Federal Courts began evolving the definition of “religion” away from that originally used by George Mason and James Madison in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776:

“Religion…the duty we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it.”

This progression can be seen in several cases.

“ETHICAL” = RELIGION

In 1957, the IRS denied tax-exempt status to an “ethical society” stating it did not qualify as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt “church” or “religious society.”

The case went to the Supreme Court, where Justice Warren Burger wrote in Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (1957):

“We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner [The Washington Ethical Society] qualifies as ‘a religious corporation or society’…

It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the ‘no-establishment’ clause of the First Amendment.”

“SECULAR HUMANISM” = RELIGION

In 1961, Roy Torcaso wanted to be a notary public in Maryland, but did not want to make “a declaration of belief in the existence of God,” as required by Maryland’s State Constitution, Article 37.

In the Supreme Court case Torcaso v Watkins (1961), Justice Hugo Black included a footnote which has been cited authoritatively in subsequent cases:

“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

Justice Scalia wrote in Edwards v. Aguillard(1987):

“In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961), we did indeed refer to ‘SECULAR HUMANISM’ as a ‘religio[n].’”

“A SINCERE AND MEANINGFUL BELIEF” = RELIGION

During the Vietnam War, Mr. Seeger said he could not affirm or deny the existence of a Supreme Being and wanted to be a draft-dodger, claiming to be a conscientious objector under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, Section 6(j) that allowed exemptions for “religious training and belief.”

In United States v Seeger, (1965), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark stated:

“The test of religious belief within the meaning in Section 6(j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption.”

“BELIEFS ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG” = RELIGION

Another draft-dodger case involved Elliot Welsh. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Welsh v. United States (1970), decided that belief in a “deity” is not necessary to be “religious”:

“Having decided that all religious conscientious objectors were entitled to the exemption, we faced the more serious problem of determining which beliefs were ‘religious’ within the meaning of the statute…

Determining whether the registrant’s beliefs are religious is whether these beliefs play the role of religion and function as a religion in the registrant’s life…

Because his beliefs function as a religion in his life, such an individual is as much entitled to a ‘religious’ conscientious objector exemption under Section 6(j) as is someone who derives his conscientious opposition to the war from traditional religious convictions…

We think it clear that the beliefs which prompted his objection occupy the same place in his life as the belief in a traditional deity holds in the lives of his friends, the Quakers…

A registrant’s conscientious objection to all war is ‘religious’ within the meaning Section 6(j) if this opposition stems from the registrant’s moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and these beliefs are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.”

“ATHEISM” = RELIGION

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, (W.D. WI) decision inKaufman v. McCaughtry, August 19, 2005, stated:

“A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being…Atheism may be considered…religion… ‘Atheism is indeed a form of religion…’

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment…

The Court has adopted a broad definition of ‘religion’ that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones…

Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”

Overlooking that the Constitution is only to be changed by Amendments voted in by the majority of the people, the Supreme Court admitted in Wallace v Jaffree (472 U.S. 38, 1985) that the original meaning of the First Amendment was modified “in the crucible of litigation,” a term not mentioned in the Constitution:

“At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the consciences of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.

But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.”

The Federal Courts gradually gave the word “religion” a new definition which included “ethical,” “secular humanism,” “a sincere and meaningful belief,”  “beliefs about right and wrong,” and “atheism.”

Under this new definition, so as not to prefer one “religion” over another, Federal Courts have prohibited God, which, ironically, has effectively established the religion of atheism in the exact the way the First Amendment was intended to prohibit.

This was warned against by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in his dissent in Abington Township v. Schempp, 1963:

“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’…

Refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

Ronald Reagan referred to this decision in a radio address, February 25, 1984:

“Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart noted if religious exercises are held to be impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed at an artificial and state-created disadvantage.

Permission for such exercises for those who want them is necessary if the schools are truly to be neutral in the matter of religion. And a refusal to permit them is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson, W.D. Va,. 1983:

“The First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion. When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established.”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Q & A Session, October 13, 1983:

“The First Amendment has been twisted to the point that freedom of religion is in danger of becoming freedom from religion.”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Ceremony for Prayer in Schools, September 25, 1982:

“In the last two decades we’ve experienced an onslaught of such twisted logic that if Alice were visiting America, she might think she’d never left Wonderland.

We’re told that it somehow violates the rights of others to permit students in school who desire to pray to do so. Clearly, this infringes on the freedom of those who choose to pray…

To prevent those who believe in God from expressing their faith is an outrage.”

Is it just a coincidence that the ACLU’s agenda is similar to the Communist agenda read into the Congressional Record, January 10, 1963 by Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr., of Florida (Vol 109, 88th Congress, 1st Session, Appendix, pp. A34-A35):

“Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state.’”

Ronald Reagan stated in a Radio Address, 1982:

“The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray.”

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich stated inACLU v Mercer County, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 20, 2005:

“The ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome.

The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some case, accommodation of religion.”

The Supreme Court stated in Lynch v Donnelly, 1984:

“The Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state.’”

Associate Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the U.S. Supreme Court caseWallace v. Jafree, 1985, dissent, 472 U. S., 38, 99:

“The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history…The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years…

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation…Recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers…

But the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in Engle v Vitale, 1962, dissent:

“The Court…is not aided…by the…invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,’ a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.”

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, McCullum v Board of Education, it stated:

“Rule of law should not be drawn from a figure of speech.”

Justice William O’Douglas wrote inZorach v Clausen, 1952:

“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State…

We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence…

We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

Ronald Reagan told the Annual Convention of the National Religious Broadcasters, January 30, 1984:

“I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible. But, you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that. Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor.”

Are anti-faith groups using the evolved interpretation of the First Amendment to take away the liberties which the original First Amendment was intended to guarantee?

Dwight Eisenhower is quoted in the TIME Magazine article, “Eisenhower on Communism,” October 13, 1952:

“The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights.

A group – like the Communist conspiracy – dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the Government.”

Ronald Reagan worded it differently on the National Day of Prayer, May 6, 1982:

“Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they’ve forbidden religious practice.”

Ronald Reagan stated at an Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast, August 23, 1984:

“The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance and freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion?”

Did Jefferson intend to outlaw the acknowledgment of God and limit students, teachers, coaches, chaplains, schools, organizations, and communities from public religious expression?

In light of mandates in President’s Healthcare law which forces individuals to violate their religious beliefs or be subject to “temporal punishments” for non-compliance, it is incumbent upon Americans to read again the words of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom:

“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion…

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical…

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity…unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which…he has a natural right…

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion…is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own…

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man…shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief,

but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.”

Ronald Reagan addressed the Alabama State Legislature, March 15, 1982:

“The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

But for a Word

This is a repost of a post that I put up a year ago, but it is still relevant and I decided that it was worth reposting!

In the post I put up previously about the founding Father’s  there was something that struck me! Roger Sherman stated:

 There is one amendment proposed by the convention of South Carolina respecting religious tests, by inserting the word other, between the words no and religious in that article, which is an ingenious thought, and had that word been inserted, it would probably have prevented any objection on that head. But it may be considered as a clerical omission and be inserted without calling a convention; as it now stands the effect will be the same”

This was written in his second letter to the New Haven Gazette on the 25th of December 1788. It made me wonder how much history would have changed if that word, other, had been inserted in between the words no and religious? 

Article. VI.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

From the Congressional Debates of 1789, we have this discussion on Religious Amendments:

August 15, 1789 First Federal Congress (Amendments-religious reference)

[House of Representatives]

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.

The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows:

(Religious Reference)

Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert ‘no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.

Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. He feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether.

Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transposing the two members of the sentence.

Mr. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious doctrine shall be established by law.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had ‘no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.’

Mr. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.

Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction on it. The ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. If an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers or buildings of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.

By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.

Mr. MADISON thought, if the word ‘National’ was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word ‘National’ was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

Mr. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with the amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.

Mr. GERRY did not like the term National, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the Conventions at the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman’s motion shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.

Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words single ‘no National religion shall be established by law’, did not apply that the government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR. LIVERMORE’s motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against it.(5)

(End of Religious Reference)

I find it odd that people can read the amendment and clearly understand that the government is not allowed to infringe on the rights of the press, and yet as the same time ignore the statement that this same government is forbidden from infringing upon the rights of the people to practice their religion and to assemble peaceably as they will.

ARTICLE THE THIRD.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the government for a redress of grievances.

I also find it odd that those we elect to serve us and defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of American, assume that their role is instead to change that very document into something that suits their ideas of what should be. We have a responsibility to those who come after us to teach them the true meaning of what the oath of affirmation says.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

We have strayed very far from our beginnings, so far that children today seem to believe that our President serves as a Monarch, instead as part of a trinity of three equal branches of government with each having their own established jobs to do. We have let Presidents take power by way of Presidential Signings that has no real basis in law, and yet they use this power to force their will upon the people even when the people who elected them cry out for change. Our current discussion of limiting the rights of the people is another power grab that goes totally against the Constitution and knowing it, our leaders intend to do all they can to steal this right away from the people. This was not unforeseen by those very writers of the Constitution:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Mr. GERRY: This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms.

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures, with respect to a militia as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

These gentlemen knew what it was like to be under an oppressive government. They understood the probability that there would come a time when our government no longer served the people but instead used force to impose their will upon them. They wanted to prevent this from happening.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.

In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.

Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

In a government bottomed on the will of all, the…liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.

I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Read more at

John Petrie’s Collection of

Thomas Jefferson Quotes

Enhanced by Zemanta

He lost two sons in the Revolution and was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration…via American Minute

By Bill Federer
He lost two sons in the Revolution and was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration.A delegate from New Jersey, he declared:

“Gentlemen, New Jersey is ready to vote for independence…The country is not only ripe for independence, but we are in danger of becoming rotten for the want of it!”

He served on 120 Congressional Committees and was a primary proponent of the separation of powers, insisting checks be placed on the power of government.

His name was John Witherspoon, and he died NOVEMBER 15, 1794.

Born in Scotland, he was a descendant of the Reformer John Knox.


John Witherspoon was President of Princeton where he taught 9 of the 55 writers of the U.S. Constitution, including James Madison.

His other Princeton students included a U.S. Vice-President, 3 Supreme Court Justices, 10 Cabinet Members, 13 Governors, 21 Senators and 39 Congressmen and 114 ministers.

After his wife died in 1789, he headed up a committee in the New Jersey legislature to abolish slavery.

John Adams described John Witherspoon as “A true son of liberty…but first, he was a son of the Cross.”


The same day Congress declared a Day of Fasting, May 17, 1776, Rev. Witherspoon told his Princeton students:

“If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country…”


John Witherspoon concluded:

“It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier…

God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable

and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.”

When peace was made with Britain, John Witherspoon exhorted all in his “Thanksgiving Sermon” to live for:

“…the Glory of God, the public interest of religion and the good of others, as civil liberty cannot be long preserved without virtue.

A Republic must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.”

Interested in more on John Witherspoon?  Continue reading…


John Witherspoon resisted “tyranny of conscience,” citing:

“There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire….

If therefore we yield up our…property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage…

Governments are to defend and secure rights of conscience.”


In his “Pastoral Letter,” Rev. Witherspoon explained:

“Universal profligacy makes a nation ripe for divine judgments and is the natural means of bringing them to ruin;

reformation of manners is of the utmost necessity in our present distress.”

In regards to man’s need for redemption, Rev. Witherspoon explained:

“The corruption of our nature…is the foundation-stone of the doctrine of redemption. Nothing can be more absolutely necessary to true religion, than a clear conviction of the sinfulness of our nature and state…”


He continued:

“Men of lax and corrupt principles take great delight in speaking to the praise of human nature, and extolling its dignity, without distinguishing what it was at its first creation from what it is in its present fallen state…

The evil of sin appears from every page of…the history of the world…

Nothing is more plain from scripture…than that man by nature is in fact incapable of recovery without the power of God specially interposed.”


In his Lectures on Divinity, Rev. John Witherspoon stated:

“Religion is the grand concern of us all…the salvation of our souls in the one thing needful.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

‘We are under tremendous attacks…by Communists who…state that capitalism – democracy – carries…the seeds of its own destruction’- Eisenhower

By Bill Federer
“We are under tremendous attacks…We are attacked by the Communists who in their own documents state that capitalism – democracy – carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction,”

stated President Dwight Eisenhower.

Continuing his address, NOVEMBER 9, 1954, to the National Conference on the Spiritual Foundation of American Democracy at the Sheraton-Carlton Hotel, Washington, DC, President Eisenhower stated:

“We are talking about the spiritual foundations of our form of government…

Now Dr. Lowry said something about my having certain convictions as to a God in Heaven and an Almighty power.

Well, I don’t think anyone needs a great deal of credit for believing in what seems to me to be obvious…

It seems to me that this relationship between a spiritual faith, a religious faith, and our form of government is so closely defined and so obvious that we should really not need to identify a man as unusual because he recognizes it…”


Eisenhower added:

“Milton asserted that all men are born equal, because each is born in the image of his God.

Our whole theory of government finally expressed in our Declaration…give the reasons to mankind why we had established such a government: ‘Man is endowed by his Creator…’

No matter what Democracy tries to do in terms of maximum individual liberty…in the economic…in the intellectual…in providing a system of justice, and a system of responsibility…when you come back to it, there is just one thing…man is worthwhile because he was born in the image of his God.”


Eisenhower concluded:

“The challenges of today…are…because…our spiritual convictions as to the worth-whileness of this form of government, weakens…

Democracy is nothing in the world but a spiritual conviction, a conviction that each of us is enormously valuable, because of a certain standing before our own God.

Now, any group that binds itself together to awaken all of us to these simple things…is, in my mind, a dedicated, patriotic group that can well take the Bible in one hand and the a flag in the other, and march ahead.”

On NOVEMBER 9, 1940, President Franklin D Roosevelt prayed:

“In a year which has seen calamity and sorrow fall upon many peoples elsewhere in the world may we give thanks for our preservation…


Almighty God, who hast given us this good land for our heritage;

We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will…

Save us from violence, discord, and confusion…

Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.


Endue with the spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that, through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth…

In the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; Amen.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Is History Repeating Itself?

When America decided that it could no longer tolerate the abuse and excess’ of King George, and declared their independence from Great Britain, they set forth in that declaration a list of the reasons for their decision. Compare their reasoning then to the current circumstances that we find ourself in. They are very similar in many instances. Take a look at a portion of the Declaration of Independence:

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the                      Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary                  government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for                          introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of                    our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all                cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

It seems in reading this, that we are no longer a free people, with a governing body that is represented by regular Americans, instead we have devolved into the very monarchy of King George that we spent treasure and lives to overcome and establish a Republic called The United States of America!

Our Constitution gave us an out if and when we faced this situation, that was in Article V which says:

“on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”

This is a proposal that is gaining popularity, especially with the promotion of people like Mark Levin. This is a proposal that relies on the States desiring the freedom which has been taken from them. It is also a process that takes time and we truly have no idea what a vindictive and manipulative federal government would do in the meantime, or even if they, who have decided that the laws do not mean anything if they don’t like them, or that they are inviolate and unable to be changed if they do.

We don’t know if the administration which has made it clear that they would like to make life painful to the American people would accept the legality of the states making decisions that benefit them. We also don’t know if our Supreme Court would rule that this is Constitutional. This leaves a lot of questions about what we would do then.

But what do we do now? Do we allow the current situation to continue? If we do, we will no longer be a free people, but rather slaves to a government that thinks that it knows what is best for all, that they have the moral right to redistribute not only the wealth that a private citizen earns, but the property that they have strived for in many cases their whole lives. An administration that thinks that it knows best what food you should eat, what news you should read, what faith you should practice, and even what words are acceptable for you to think!

In other words, we will not be The United States of America because the states will really no longer exist, but instead every directive will come from the Federal Government and they will be our God.

When the founding patriots decided that they had reached their limit and informed King George of their grievances, they knew that they would have to fight for freedom.

“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

The time is rapidly approaching when we as American Citizens must choose the path of our future. We must choose while we have the opportunity, because if we do not, it will be chosen for us. A Constitutional Convention is one choice and it is one that I think that most people would agree on. However there is the possibility that we will not be able to make that choice. It that is the case there will only be two choices. Thomas Jefferson informed us that there was a possibility that we may have to change our government in The Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

When our government no longer have our permission to govern and instead are forcing us into the positions of slaves to it, we have the right under the Constitution to remove our government and take the rights that they lay claim to, away from them. We are told that it should not be done lightly and for transient cause. What is going on in our Federal Government is not a transient cause. Instead, it is rapidly developing into permanent enslavement. We can look at the reasons that we declared our independence in the first place and compare them to today’s conditions and see that they are almost identical.  It is our right, our duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for our future security. We are in the throes of Tyranny with a leader and governing body that no longer follows the law, abides by the Constitution, nor address’ the complaints of the people. We must choose wisely, but above all we must choose!

Cross posted at MareZilla

Cross posted at Grumpy’s Opinions

This image was selected as a picture of the we...

This image was selected as a picture of the week on the Malay Wikipedia for the 26th week, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Amendments passed limiting Fed. Gov. – Washington thanked WHO…? via American Minute

By Bill Federer

OCTOBER 3, 1789, from the U.S. Capitol in New York City, President George Washington issued the first Proclamation of a National Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer to Almighty God.

Why?

Just one week earlier the first session of the U.S. Congress successfully approved the Bill of Rights, which put ten limitations on the power of the new Federal Government.

The States were concerned the Federal Government would get too powerful.

ThePreamble to the Bill of Rights explained:

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…as amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”

The First of the Ten Amendments restricting the Federal Government’s abuse of its powers began:

“CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,

and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

       President George Washington thanked God for the “Constitutions of government…particularly the national one now lately instituted,” stating in his Proclamation, OCTOBER 3, 1789:

“Whereas it is the DUTY of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of ALMIGHTY GOD, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and 


Whereas 
both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me

‘to recommend to the People of the United States A DAY OF PUBLIC THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of ALMIGHTY GOD, 

especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to ESTABLISH A FORM OF GOVERNMEN

T for their safety and happiness;’ 

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the twenty-sixth day of November next, to be devoted by the People of these United States to the service of that GREAT AND GLORIOUS BEING, who is the BENEFICENT AUTHOR of all the good that was, that is, or that will be;

That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks,

for His kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation;

for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of HIS PROVIDENCE, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war;

for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed,

for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to ESTABLISH CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT for our safety and happiness, and PARTICULARLY THE NATIONAL ONE NOW LATELY INSTITUTED,

for the CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;

and in general for all the great and various favors which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to THE GREAT LORD AND RULER OF NATIONS, and beseech Him

to pardon our national and other transgressions,

to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually;

to render OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT a blessing to all the People, by constantly being A GOVERNMENT OF WISE, JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed;

to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord;

TO PROMOTE THE KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE OF TRUE RELIGION AND VIRTUE, and the increase of science among them and us;

and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3rd of October, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

-George Washington.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

‘There is a time to preach and a time to fight’ – John Peter Muhlenberg via American Minute

by Bill Federer
He preached a message on Ecclesiastes 3:1:”For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.”

He closed his message by saying:

“In the language of the Holy Writ, there is a time for all things. There is a time to preach and a time to fight. And now is the time to fight.”

This was John Peter Gabriel Muhlenburg, a 30 year old member of the Virginia House of Burgesses…and a pastor.

At the end of his sermon, January 21, 1776, John Peter Muhlenburg threw off his clerical robes to reveal the uniform of an officer in the Continental Army.

Drum began to roll, men kissed their wives, then walked down the aisle to enlist.

The next day, Pastor Muhlenberg led 300 men of his church to marched off and join General Washington’s Continental Army as the 8th Virginia Regiment.

John Peter Muhlenberg was born OCTOBER 1, 1746, and he died the same day sixty-one years later, OCTOBER 1, 1807.

As a youth, he lived with relatives in Germany from 1763-1767, and returned to America to finish his schooling at the Academy of Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania).

He served Lutheran congregations, though he was ordained as an Anglican minister, as was the requirement in Colonial Virginia.


In 1774, he was elected to the House of Burgesses and became a delegate to the First Virginia Convention.

John Peter Muhlenberg heard Patrick Henry’s famous speech, “Give me liberty or give me death,” in 1775, and was moved to enlist.

General George Washington personally asked him to raised soldiers and serve as their Colonel.

John Peter’s brother, Fredrick Augustus Mulenberg, was a Lutheran minister in New York who opposed John Peter joining Washington’s army:

“You have become too involved in matters which, as a preacher, you have nothing whatsoever to do…”

Then the British bombarded New York and burned Fredrick’s church right in front of him, resulting in Fredrick joining the patriotic cause.

John Peter Muhlenberg fought until the end of the war, being promoted to the rank of Major-General.

He endured the freezing winter of Valley Forge and saw action at Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Stonypoint.

He helped force British General Cornwallis to surrender at Yorktown.

After the war, John Peter Muhlenburg was elected to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Executive Council in 1784, and then Vice-President of Pennsylvania in 1787.

In 1789, he was elected a Representative to the first U.S. Congress.

In 1790, he was a member of the Pennsylvania’s State Constitutional Convention and in 1793, was the first founder of the Democratic-Republican Societies.

John’s father, Henry Muhlenberg, was a founder of the Lutheran Church in America.

John’s brother, Fredrick Augustus Mulenberg, was also elected to the U.S. Congress and became the first Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Both ordained pastors, John and Frederick Muhlenberg served in the first session of the U.S. Congress which passed the First Amendment, making sure that the new Federal Government would never “prohibit the free exercise” of their religion, nor take away the freedom of speech, press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

John Peter Muhlenberg was elected a U.S. Senator in 1801.

He served as a Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania, which honored him with a statue.

In 1889, the State of Pennsylvania placed a statue of John Peter Muhlenberg in the U.S. Capitol’s Statuary Hall.

His statue is in front of the Shenendoah County Courthouse.

John Peter Gabriel Muhlenburg was memorialized in a poem by Thomas Buchanan Read, titled “The Rising,” published inWilliam Holmes McGuffey Fifth Eclectic Reader(Cincinnati & New York: Van Antwerp, Bragg & Co., revised ed., 1879, Lesson LXV, pp. 200-204):

…Within its shade of elm and oak
The church of Berkley Manor stood:
There Sunday found the rural folk,
And some esteemed of gentle blood.

In vain their feet with loitering tread
Passed ‘mid the graves where rank is naught:
All could not read the lesson taught
In that republic of the dead.

The pastor rose: the prayer was strong;
The psalm was warrior David’s song;
The text, a few short words of might,-
“The Lord of Hosts shall arm the right!”

He spoke of wrongs too long endured,
Of sacred rights to be secured;
Then from his patriot tongue of flame
The startling words for Freedom came.

The stirring sentences he spake
Compelled the heart to glow or quake,

And, rising on his theme’s broad wing,
And grasping in his nervous hand
The imaginary battle-brand,
In face of death he dared to fling
Defiance to a tyrant king.

Even as he spoke, his frame renewed
In eloquence of attitude,

Rose, as it seemed, a shoulder higher;
Then swept his kindling glance of fire
From startled pew to breathless choir;

When suddenly his mantle wide
His hands impatient flung aside,
And, lo! He met their wondering eyes
Complete in all a warrior’s guise.
A moment there was awful pause,-

When Berkley cried, “Cease, traitor! Cease!
God’s temple is the house of peace!”

The other shouted, “Nay, not so,
When God is with our righteous cause:
His holiest places then are ours,
His temples are our forts and towers
That frown upon the tyrant foe:

In this the dawn of Freedom’s day
There is a time to fight and pray!”

And now before the open door-
The warrior priest had ordered so-
The enlisting trumpet’s sudden soar
Rang through the chapel, o’er and o’er,
Its long reverberating blow,

So loud and clear, it seemed the ear
Of dusty death must wake and hear.
And there the startling drum and fife
Fired the living with fiercer life;

While overhead with wild increase,
Forgetting its ancient toll of peace,
The great bell swung as ne’er before:
It seemed as it would never cease;

And every word its ardor flung
From off its jubilant iron tongue
Was, “War! War! War!”

“Who dares”-this was the patriot’s cry,
As striding from the desk he came -
“Come out with me, in Freedom’s name,
For her to live, for her to die?”

A hundred hands flung up reply,
A hundred voices answered “I!”

In Washington, D.C., at the corner of Connecticut Ave. and Ellicott St., there is a bronze memorial to John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, with the inscription:

JOHN PETER GABRIEL MUHLENBERG
1746-1807
SERVING
HIS CHURCH
HIS COUNTRY
HIS STATE

…THE “FIGHTING PARSON OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”

 American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

We Have Rejected God – A Poem


‘Congress shall make no law…to infringe the rights of conscience.’- Fisher Ames via American Minute

By Bill Federer

He sat in the pew next to George Washington at St. Paul’s Chapel in New York during the religious service following Washington’s Presidential Inauguration.null
null
He helped ratify the U.S. Constitution and was a Congressman from Massachusetts.

null
On August 20, 1789, he proposed as the wording of the First Amendment (Annals of Congress, 1:766):

Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.”

null
His name was Fisher Ames.

Fisher Ames compared monarchy to a republic, as recorded by Ralph Waldo Emerson in Essays, Second Series, (chapter 7, “Politics,” p. 97, 1844; Library of America, 1983):

“Monarchy is a merchantman, which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock, and go to the bottom; whilst a republic is a raft, which would never sink, but then your feet are always in water.”

null
Of America’s Republic, Fisher Ames wrote in an article titled “Monitor,” published in The New England Palladium of Boston, 1804, (Works of Fisher Ames, compiled by a number of his friends, Boston: T.B. Wait & Co., 1809, p. 272):

“We now set out with our experimental project, exactly where Rome failed with hers. We now begin, where she ended.”

null
Warning against the temptation to increase government, Fisher Ames stated in “Speeches on Mr. Madison’s Resolutions” (Works of Fisher Ames, compiled by a number of his friends, Boston: T.B. Wait & Co., 1809, p. 48):

“To control trade by law, instead of leaving it to the better management of the merchants…(is) to play the tyrant in the counting house, and in directing the private expenses of our citizens, are employments equally unworthy of discussion.”

At the Massachusetts Convention, January 15, 1788, Fisher Ames warned that democracy without morals would eventually reduce the nation to the basest of human passions, swallowing freedom:

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.”

null
Fisher Ames commented in “The Dangers of American Liberty,” 1805 (published in Works of Fisher Ames: with a selection from his speeches and correspondence, Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1854, pp. 349):

“The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness, which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be, liberty.”

Russell Kirk described Fisher Ames in The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2001, chapter 3, p. 81-85):

“As time runs on, Ames grows more intense. Democracy cannot last…When property is snatched from hand to hand…then society submits cravenly to the immorality of rule by the sword…

Of all the terrors of democracy, the worst is its destruction of moral habits. ‘A democratic society will soon find its morals…the surly companion of its licentious joys’…

Is there no check upon these excesses?…The press supplies an endless stimulus to popular imagination and passion; the press lives upon heat and coarse drama and incessant restlessness. ‘It has inspired ignorance with presumption’…

‘Constitutions,’ says Ames, ‘are but paper; society is the substratum of government’…

Like Samuel Johnson, (Ames) finds the key to political decency in private morality.”

null
Aaron McLeod wrote in “Great Conservative Minds: A Condensation of Russell Kirk’sThe Conservative Mind” (October 2005, Alabama Policy Institute, Birmingham, AL, chp. 3, p. 9-10}:

“Ames was pessimistic about the American experiment because he doubted there were sufficient numbers of men with the moral courage and charisma to preserve the country from the passions of the multitudes and the demagogues who master them.

He was convinced that the people as a body cannot reason and are easily swayed by clever speakers and political agents. In his words, ‘few can reason, all can feel’…

nullDemocracy could not last, Ames thundered, ‘for despotism lies at the door; when the tyranny of the majority leads to chaos, society will submit to rule by the sword.‘”

Aaron McLeod continued:

“To Ames, what doomed the American experiment was the democratic destruction of morals…

Ames believed that justice and morality in America would fail, and popular rule cannot support justice, without which moral habits fall away.

Neither the free press nor paper constitutions could safe-guard order from these excesses, for the first is merely a stimulus to popular passion and imagination, while the other is a thin bulwark against corruption.

When old prescription and tradition are dismissed, only naked force matters.”

null
George Washington died December 14, 1799.

Fisher Ames delivered a eulogy “An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington,” February 8, 1800, at Boston’s Old South Meeting-House, before the Lieutenant Governor, the Council, and both branches of the Massachusetts Legislature (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800, p. 23):

“Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits…

It is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.”

Fisher Ames wrote inThe Mercury and New-England Palladium of Boston(Vol. XVII, No. 2,8,Tuesday, January 27, 1801, p. 1; John Thornton Kirkland,Works of Fisher Ames, 1809, p. 134-35; The Works of Fisher Ames, compiled by a number of his friends, T.B. Wait & Co., Boston, 1809, p. 134-135; Seth Ames, ed., Works of Fisher Ames, Vol. II, New York: Birt Franklin, 1971, pp. 405-406; Frederick C. Kubicek, Evolution-Guilty As Charged, Shippensburg, PA; Treasure House, 1993, p. 125):

null
“It has been the custom of late years to put a number of little books into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons…

Many books for children are…injudiciously compiled…the moral is drawn from the fable they know not why…

Some of the most admired works of this kind abound with a frothy sort of sentiment…the chief merit of which consists in shedding tears and giving away money…

Why then, if these books for children must be retained…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.

One consideration more is important: In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant – and by teaching all the same book they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”

null
D. James Kennedy summarized Fisher Ames words in “The Great Deception” (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Coral Ridge Ministries, 1989; 1993, p. 3; The Great Deception-a speech delivered December 1, 1992, Ottawa, IL):

“We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education. We’re starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools. We’ve become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons.

We’re spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man-made book.”

At age 46, Fisher Ames was elected Harvard’s president, but he declined due to an illness which eventually led to his death.

On July 4, 1808, exactly 32 years to the day after America declared its Independence, Fisher Ames died at the age of 50.

One of the most famous orators in Congress, Fisher Ames was quoted in theEncyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Bela Bates Edward, editor of Quarterly Observer, Brattleboro, VT: Joseph Steen & Co.; Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co.; New York: Lewis Colby, 1851, p. 78):

“No man ever did or ever will become truly eloquent without being a constant reader of the Bible, and an admirer of the purity and sublimity of its language.”

 American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Ideas That Have Shaped America


Why, America? Why?

People wonder why many in this nation now choose and exhibit self-destructive insanity. The fact that many have been given over to a reprobate mind explains why America is now so self-destructive. Here are 50 rhetorical questions for the sane people remaining in America to consider. After reading them, you also might be convinced that many Americans have been given over to a reprobate mind.

  1. Why did Americans elect and reelect a Godless administration that is leading it to its destruction?
  2. Why do Americans have an unconstitutional tyrannical government in power and why are Americans allowing it?
  3. Why do Americans allow a government that pushes evil on our society and obstructs good?
  4. Why does America get themselves into one war after another?
  5. Why is Marijuana the largest cash crop in this nation?
  6. Why can’t our political leaders recognized the real enemies of our nation? (no mirror?)
  7. Why do Americans allow their government to continually spend much more than it has?
  8. Why have Americans allowed a private bank to destroy the dollar?
  9. Why does one private bank have almost total control over the U.S. economic system?
  10. Why do the people of our nation elect and reelect reprobates to office?
  11. Why do Americans allow their government to spy on everything that they do?
  12. Why do Americans allow government to understate inflation to rob them and overstate employment to deceive them?
  13. Why does the American government prejudicially and selectively choose to enforce or not enforce laws?
  14. Why does the American government pretend that Islam is not a world threat?
  15. Why does the American government allow Iran and N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons that are being devolved to destroy America?
  16. Why has our government not protected us from the threat of an EMP attack?
  17. Why will our government not enforce our borders?
  18. Why do we live in a surveillance state if Islam is not our enemy and the war against terrorism has been won?
  19. Why do most Americans believe that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle when it is obviously abnormal and proves to be deadly?
  20. Why do half the marriages in America end in divorce?
  21. Why do most people shack up when they should be getting married?
  22. Why do woman in America choose to abort their babies?
  23. Why would blacks with sound minds allow themselves to be manipulated by black racists?
  24. Why do blacks overwhelmingly vote for the political party that enslaved them and that still enslaves them to the masters of the government plantation?
  25. Why do most black men abandon their children?
  26. Why is most everything on TV about sex, violence and the abnormal?
  27. Why is porn half the Internet traffic that is not SPAM?
  28. Why do most preachers in America not preach the gospel, and why do most Christians go to these churches?
  29. Why do Christian leaders teach works and humanism when the Bible teaches faith in Jesus Christ?
  30. Why do Christian leaders teach mysticism when the founders of the faith taught biblical doctrine?
  31. Why will most preachers in America not preach about the second coming of Jesus?
  32. Why do Christian leaders in America claim that unregenerate man is basically good when God says that none are good?
  33. Why do American Christians make their pastor an idol? Why do Christians support TBN?
  34. Why does Joel Osteen have the biggest church in the country?
  35. Why are Christian book stores full of heretical books?
  36. Why is the heretical “Jesus Calling” Part onePart two one of the top books in Christianity and why is the SBC sweetheart Beth Moore promoting this new age mystical clap trap?
  37. Why are Christian men allowing woman to feminize their churches?
  38. Why is Wal-Mart the largest employer in the country? Why is Kelly Temporary Services the second largest?
  39. Why are politicians still pretending that global warming is the big threat to the earth when the earth has not warmed in almost two decades?
  40. Why do Americans allow DUI check points that consistently arrest or ticket 95 percent of the citizens for something other than DUI?
  41. Why are the local police militarized? Why are there 50,000 swat raids in America annually?
  42. Why does America have the highest incarceration rate in the world?
  43. Why are inner cities in America controlled by gangs?
  44. Why do Americans allow their schools to indoctrinate their children in Humanism and Marxism?
  45. Why is sex being pushed in our grade schools and morning after pills being made available to children at drugstores without parents even knowing?
  46. Why do parent not protect their children from the most destructive influences in our society?
  47. Why are Americans obsessed with sports, especially on Sunday?
  48. Why is America the second fattest people in the world (Mexico is number one)?
  49. Why do Americans use more illegal drugs than any nation on earth?
  50. Why do Americans use legal mind alternating drugs more than any other nation on earth?

Many exhibit insanity because God gave them over to a reprobate mind


Declaration of Independence – What price did Signers pay? via American Minute

Bill Federer

The Declaration of Independence was approved JULY 4, 1776.It listed abuses of King George III, age 38, such as:

“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone…

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies…

To subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution…

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us…

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury…

For…establishing…an Arbitrary government…

For…altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments…

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny…

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions…”

33-year-old Thomas Jefferson’s original rough draft of the Declaration contained a line condemning slavery:

“He has waged cruel war against human nature itself…in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither…

suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold.”

A few delegates objected, and as the Declaration needed to pass unanimously and time was running short with the British invading New York, the line condemning slavery was unfortunately omitted.


John Hancock, the 39-year-old President of the Continental Congress, signed the Declaration first, reportedly saying “the price on my head has just doubled.”

Next to sign was Secretary, Charles Thomson, age 47.


70-year-old Benjamin Franklin said:

“We must hang together or most assuredly we shall hang separately.

The Declaration referred to God:

“Laws of Nature and ofNature’s God

All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by theirCreator with certain unalienable Rights…

Appealing to theSupreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions…”

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Many of the 56 signers sacrificed their prosperity for their posterity.

Of the Signers:

17 served in the military,
11 had their homes destroyed;
5 were hunted and captured; and
9 died during the war.

27-year-old George Walton signed, and at the Battle of Savannah was wounded and captured.

Signers Edward Rutledge, age 27, Thomas Heyward, Jr., age 30, and Arthur Middleton, age 34, were made prisoners at the Siege of Charleston.

38-year-old signer Thomas Nelson had his home used as British headquarters during the siege of Yorktown. Nelson reportedly offered five guineas to the first man to hit his house.

Signer Carter Braxton, age 40, lost his fortune during the war.

42-year-old signer Thomas McKean wrote that he was “hunted like a fox by the enemy, compelled to remove my family five times in three month.”

46-year-old Richard Stockton signed and was dragged from his bed at night and jailed.

50-year-old signer Lewis Morris had his home taken and used as a barracks.

50-year-old signer Abraham Clark had two sons tortured and imprisoned on the British starving ship Jersey.

More Americans died on British starving ships than died in battle during the Revolution.

53-year-old signer John Witherspoon’s son, James, was killed in the Battle of Germantown.

60-year-old signer Philip Livingston lost several properties to British occupation and died before the war ended.

63-year-old signer Francis Lewis had his wife imprisoned and treated so harshly, she died shortly after her release.

65-year-old signer John Hart had his home looted and had to remain in hiding, dying before the war ended.

41-year-old John Adams wrote of the Declaration:

“I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding generations, as the great anniversary Festival.

It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.

It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this time forward forever more.”

John Adams continued:

“You will think me transported with enthusiasm but I am not.

I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.

Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means.

And that Posterity will triumph in that Days Transaction, even although we should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”

When 54-year-old Samuel Adams signed the Declaration, he said:

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

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Did Franklin foresee Rise…and Fall of Constitution? via American Minute

Bill Federer

The Constitutional Convention was in a deadlock over how large and small states could be represented equally.Some delegates left.

Then, on JUNE 28, 1787, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin spoke and shortly after, the U.S. Constitution became a reality.

Franklin stated:

“Groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights…

In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection.

Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered.

All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending Providence in our favor…

And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”

Franklin concluded:

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’…

I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed…no better than the Builders of Babel.”

Ben Franklin gave another address at the Constitutional Convention, 1787, titled Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy:

“Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men…ambition and avarice-the love of power and the love of money…

When united…they have…the most violent effects.

Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall, at the same time, be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it…

What kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters?

It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust.

It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits.

These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers…

Franklin explained further:

“There will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able, in return, to give more to them.

All history informs us, there has been…a kind of warfare between the governing and the governed; the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less…

Generally, indeed, the ruling power carries…and we see the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more.

The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans, and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure.

There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh-get first all the people’s money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever.

It will be said that we do not propose to establish kings…But there is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government…

They would rather have one tyrant than five hundred. It gives more of the appearance of equality among citizens; and that they like.

I am apprehensive, therefore-perhaps too apprehensive-that the government of the States may, in future times, end in a monarchy…and a king will the sooner be set over us.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Voting in America via American Minute

    Bill Federer

In Medieval Europe, most countries had only one person vote – the King.
In colonial America only landowners voted, then those owning a certain amount of personal property.

After the Revolution, States gradually let those without land vote if they paid taxes, but many States continued religious and literacy tests.

In 1870, the 15th Amendment let former slaves vote.

In 1920, the 19th Amendment let women vote. 

In 1924, American Indians could vote in Federal Elections.

In 1961, the 23rd Amendment let District of Columbia residents vote in Federal Elections.


In 1964, the 24th Amendment let vote those who could not pay a poll tax.

In 1965, the Voting Rights Act removed literacy tests.

On JUNE 22, 1970, President Nixon extended the Voting Rights Act to let 18-year-olds vote.

The Supreme Court, in Oregon v Mitchell, limited this right so the 26th Amendment was passed in 1971 to confirm it.

President Nixon stated March 24, 1970:

“In other areas, too, there were long struggles to eliminate discrimination…Property and even religious qualifications for voting persisted well into the 19th century - and not until 1920 were women finally guaranteed the right to vote.”

On August 24, 1972, Nixon said:

“For the first time in the 195 year history of this country, men and women 18 to 21 years of age will have the chance to vote.”

In 1832, Noah Webster wrote in his History of the United States:

“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you tochoose for rulers ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God.’

The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty.

If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes;

corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded…”

Noah Webster continued:

“If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because thecitizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

U.S. Constitution ratified by States which included Faith in State Constitutions via American Minute

Bill Federer

New Hampshire Governor John Langdon called for a Day of Fasting, February 21, 1786, to pray for the new government of the United States:”That He would be pleased to bless the great Council of the United States of America and direct their deliberations…

that he would rain down righteousness upon the earth, revive religion, and spread abroad the knowledge of the true God, the Saviour of man.”

When New Hampshire became the 9th State to ratify the U.S. Constitution, JUNE 21, 1788,  it officially went into effect.

The 55 writers of the U.S. Constitution were:

26 Episcopalian Christians
11 Presbyterian Christians
7 Congregationalist Christians
2 Lutheran Christians
2 Dutch Reformed Christians
2 Methodist Christians
2 Quaker Christians
2 Roman Catholics
and Dr. Franklin, who called for prayer at the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787, stating:

“In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered.

All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor…

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?…”

Franklin continued:

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’… I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel…

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”

The Constitution went into effect June 21, 1788, when 2/3′s of the States ratified it:

DELAWARE – 1st to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 State Constitution:

“Every person…appointed to any office…shall…subscribe…

‘I…profess faith in GOD THE FATHER, and in JESUS CHRIST His only Son, and in the HOLY GHOST, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.’”

PENNSYLVANIA – 2nd to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 State Constitution, signed by Ben Franklin:

“Each member, before he takes his seat, shall…subscribe…

‘I do believe in one GOD, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.’”

NEW JERSEY – 3rd to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 State Constitution:

“All persons, professing a belief in the faith of any PROTESTANT sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government…shall be capable of being elected.”

GEORGIA – 4th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1777 State Constitution:

“Representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county…and they shall be of the PROTESTANT religion.”

CONNECTICUT – 5th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, retained its 1662 Colonial Constitution, which was established PROTESTANT CONGREGATIONAL, till 1818:

“By the Providence of GOD…having from their ancestors derived a free and excellent Constitution…whereby the legislature depends on the free and annual election…The free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility and CHRISTIANITY call for.”

MASSACHUSETTS – 6th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1780 State Constitution, written by John Adams:

“Any person…before he…execute the duties of his…office…[shall] subscribe…’I…declare, that I believe the CHRISTIAN religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth’…

The legislature shall…authorize the support and maintenance of public PROTESTANT teachers of piety, religion and morality.”

MARYLAND – 7th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 State Constitution:

“No other test…ought to be required, on admission to any office…than such oath of support and fidelity to this State…and a declaration of a belief in the CHRISTIAN religion.”

SOUTH CAROLINA – 8th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1778 State Constitution:

“No person shall be eligible to a seat…unless he be of the PROTESTANT religion…The CHRISTIAN PROTESTANT religion shall be deemed…the established religion of this State.”

NEW HAMPSHIRE – 9th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1784 State Constitution:

“No person shall be capable of being elected…who is not of the PROTESTANT religion.”

VIRGINIA – 10th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 State Constitution, Bill of Rights, written with the help of James Madison and George Mason:

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice CHRISTIAN forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

NEW YORK – 11th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1777 State Constitution:

“The United American States…declare…

‘Laws of nature and of NATURE’S GOD…All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights…Appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE of the world…A firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE’…

People of this State, ordain…the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination…

Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness.”

NORTH CAROLINA – 12th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 State Constitution:

“No person, who shall deny the being of GOD or the truth of the PROTESTANT religion, or the Divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding…office.”

RHODE ISLAND – 13th to ratify the U.S. Constitution, retained its 1663 Colonial Constitution till 1843, which stated:

“By the blessing of God…a full liberty in religious concernements…rightly grounded upon GOSPEL principles, will give the best and greatest security…in the true CHRISTIAN faith and worship of God…They may…defend themselves, in their just rights and liberties against all the enemies of the CHRISTIAN faith.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Lafayette Black wrote in Engel v. Vitale, 1962:

“As late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established Churches in at least 8 of the 13 former colonies and established religions in at least 4 of the other 5.”

John K. Wilson wrote inReligion Under the State Constitutions 1776-1800 (Journal of Church and State, Volume 32, Autumn 1990, Number 4, pp. 754):

“An establishment of religion, in terms of direct tax aid to Churches, was the situation in 9 of the 13 colonies on the eve of the American revolution.”

The Journal of the U.S. Houserecorded that on March 27, 1854, the 33rd Congress voted unanimously to print Rep. James Meacham’s report, which stated:

“At the adoption of the Constitution, we believe every State – certainly 10 of the 13 – provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government…

Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people…

Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Maryland Religious Tolerance, First Catholics, then Puritans, then Christians, then… via American Minute

Bill Federer

JUNE 20, 1632, King Charles I of England granted a charter for the Colony of Maryland, named for his CATHOLIC wife, Queen Henrietta Maria, stating:”Charles, by the Grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith…

Whereas our well beloved… subject Cecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, in our Kingdom of Ireland… being animated with a laudable, and pious zeal for extending the CHRISTIAN RELIGION…

hath humbly besought leave of us that he may transport, by his own…expense, a numerous colony of the English Nation, to certain…parts of America… partly occupied by savages, having no knowledge of the Divine Being…

With the increasing worship and RELIGION OF CHRIST within said region…shall…be built…Churches, Chapels, and Places of Worship.”

Lord Baltimore Cecilius Calvert, a CATHOLIC, sent two ships, the Ark and the Dove, to settle the colony of Maryland.

He gave instructions to his brother, Leonard Calvert, the Governor of the expedition, 1634:

“To preserve peace and unity amongst all the passengers…treat the PROTESTANTS with as much mildness and favor as justice will require.”

Buying land from the Indians, they founded the St. Mary’s City, considered the birthplace of religious tolerance in the United States.

In 1649, they extended liberty to PROTESTANTS by issuing the Maryland Toleration Act, which stated:

“That no person…within this province…professing to believe in JESUS CHRIST shall…from henceforth be any ways troubled or molested…in respect of his or her religion.”

When the neighboring colony of Virginia drove out anyone who was not an ANGLICAN, settlers who were PURITAN fled to Maryland because of the Maryland Toleration Act.

Meanwhile, back in England, a Civil War broke out between PURITANS and ANGLICANS.

The PURITANS won and chopped off the head of ANGLICAN King Charles I in 1649.

At this time, an ANGLICAN named John Washington emigrated to Virginia. His great-grandson was George Washington.

In Maryland, PURITANS took over the colony in 1650 and passed laws against CATHOLICS, such as the Act Concerning Religion, October 20, 1654:

“That such as profess Faith in GOD by JESUS CHRIST, though differing in Judgment from from the Doctrine, Worship or Discipline…should not be restrained but protected in the Profession of the Faith and Exercise of their Religion…PROVIDED SUCH LIBERTY WAS NOT EXTENDED TO POPERY…

That none who profess and exercise the PAPISTIC, commonly known as the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, can be protected in this province.”

PURITANS lost control of England, and in 1658, Lord Baltimore was restored to being Maryland’s Governor.

In 1688, the last CATHOLIC King of England, James II, was driven out during “the Glorious Revolution,” and William and Mary ruled as ANGLICANS.

In Maryland, ANGLICANS took control of the colony, and CATHOLICS were again denied freedom of conscience, as stated in an Act to Prevent the Growth of Popery, September 30, 1704:

“That whatsoever POPISH Bishop, Priest or Jesuit, shall baptize any child…other than such who have POPISH Parents or shall say Mass…shall forfeit…fifty pounds Sterling…and shall also suffer six months imprisonment…

And be it further enacted…if any PAPIST…shall keep school or take upon themselves the education…or boarding of youth…such persons…shall upon conviction be transported out of this Province.”

QUAKERS, SCOTCH PRESBYTERIANS, GERMAN MORAVIANS, MENNONITES and other PROTESTANT DISSENTERS began moving into Maryland.

The wealthiest man in Maryland, Charles Carroll, Sr., sailed to France in 1752, to obtain land from CATHOLIC King Louis XV in the Louisiana Territory in order to move Maryland CATHOLICS there.

Then the Revolutionary War started and everything changed.

The different colonies in America, with their different denominations, realized they had to work together in order to defeat the ANGLICAN King George III.

Maryland, at first, resisted the Revolution, as almost every member of the ANGLICAN clergy supported King George III.

Charles Carroll, son of the wealthiest landowner in the colony, was the sole CATHOLIC to sign the Declaration of Independence. He wrote to Rev. John Stanford, October, 9, 1827:

“To obtain religious as well as civil liberty I entered jealously into the Revolution, and observing the Christian religion divided into many sects, I founded the hope that no one would be so predominant as to become the religion of the State.

That hope was thus early entertained because all of them joined in the same cause, with few exceptions of individuals.”

In 1776, Maryland’s original State Constitution generously granted religious freedom to every denomination of PROTESTANTS and CATHOLICS:

“ARTICLE 33: That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;

wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice…

yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION.”

Maryland’s original Constitution continued:

“ARTICLE 55. That every person, appointed to any office… shall… take the following oath:

I…do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland; and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the CHRISTIAN RELIGION.”

In 1851, Maryland’s Constitution stated:

“ARTICLE 34. That no other test or qualification ought to be required…than such oath of office as may be prescribed by this Constitution…and a declaration of belief in the CHRISTIAN RELIGION; and if the party shall profess to be a JEW, the declaration shall be of his belief in a future state of rewards and punishments.”

In 1864, Maryland’s Constitution stated:

“ARTICLE 37. That no other test or qualification ought to be required…than such oath of allegiance…to this State and the United States…and a declaration of belief in the CHRISTIAN RELIGION; or in the existence of GOD, and in a future state of rewards and punishments.”

In 1867, Maryland’s Constitution stated:

“ARTICLE 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required…other than a declaration of belief in the existence of GOD.”

In 2002, Maryland’s Constitution stated:

“ARTICLE 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required…other than a declaration of belief in the existence of GOD.”

In 1835, French political writer Gustave de Beaumont, a contemporary of Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote in, Marie ou L’Esclavage aux E’tas-Unis:

“In the United States, the law is never atheistic…All of the American constitutions proclaim freedom of conscience and the liberty and equality of all the confessions…

Maryland’s Constitution also declares that all of the faiths are free, and that no one is forced to contribute to the maintenance of a particular Church.

However, it gives the legislature the right to establish a general tax…for the support of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION…Maryland Law declares that, to be admitted to public office, it is necessary to be a CHRISTIAN.”

In October of 1789, George Washington wrote to the Quakers’ yearly meeting for Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey & Delaware:

“GOVERNMENT being, among other purposes, instituted to PROTECT the persons and CONSCIENCES of men from oppression…the liberty enjoyed by the People of these States of WORSHIPING ALMIGHTY GOD agreeable to their CONSCIENCES is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights.”

George Washington wrote to the Congregation of New Church in Baltimore, Maryland, January 27, 1793:

“Every person may here WORSHIP GOD according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and in this land of equal liberty it is our boast that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Fought Stamp Tax, signed Declaration, became Supreme Court Justice, defended Religious Liberty via American Minute

Bill Federer

Samuel Chase signed the Declaration of Independence and was appointed by President George Washington as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.Born April 17, 1741, the son of an Anglican clergyman, he was home-schooled till age 18, traveled to Annapolis, Maryland, studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1761.In 1764, Samuel Chase was elected to the Maryland General Assembly.

With a reputation as a firebrand, he founded a Maryland chapter of The Sons of Liberty to protest The Stamp Act of 1765 and the British Government’s usurpation of citizen’s rights.

At the age of 24, Chase challenged the authority of the English Parliament to tax the Colonies without their consent, and forcibly opened the public offices in Annapolis, seized and destroyed the hated stamps.

When Maryland learned that Boston’s harbor had been closed in 1774 to punish the Tea Party colonists,  Samuel Chase and four other Marylanders were appointed as delegates to the Continental Congress for:

“agreeing on a general plan of conduct…for the relief of Boston and preservation of American liberty.”

Chase served on dozens of committees, and in the spring of 1776, even traveled with Ben Franklin, Charles Carroll of Carrollton and his cousin Bishop John Carroll, in an unsuccessful attempt to get Canada to join the Revolution.

Samuel Chase, more than any other, was responsible forpersuading Maryland to vote for independence.

On August 2, 1776, Samuel Chase along with other Maryland delegates, William Paca, Thomas Stone and Charles Carroll of Carrollton signed the Declaration.

At the beginning of the Revolutionary War when political intrigues arose to remove George Washington from being Commander-in-Chief, Samuel Chase staunchly support Washington.

After the War, at Maryland’s 1788 Convention to decide whether to accept the new United States Constitution,Samuel Chase initially voted against it, as he thought the States were relinquishing too much control.

In a letter he signed “Caution,” (Maryland Journal, October 12, 1787), Samuel Chase warned of the rush to adopt the Constitution:

“Suspicion should take the alarm… Questions of consequence…ought not to be hastily decided…The decision, for or against the plan…involves no less than the happiness or miser of you and all your posterity forever.”

In 1788, he was appointed Chief Justice of Baltimore’s District Criminal Court, and in 1791, he became Chief Justice of the Maryland General Court.

In 1796, President George Washington appointed Samuel Chase as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

A controversial personality, Samuel Chase had articles of impeachment filed against him in 1804, but he was acquitted of all charges.

Samuel Chase was one of the most influential Justices on the early Supreme Court, following Chief Justice John Marshall, serving till his death, JUNE 19, 1811.

Justice Samuel Chase was decisive in a 1799 case involving whether Irish emigrant Thomas M’Creery had become a naturalized American citizen and thereby able to leave an estate to a relative in Ireland.

The Court decided:

“Thomas M’Creery, in order to become…naturalized according to the Act of Assembly…on the 30th of September, 1795, took the oath…before the Honorable Samuel Chase, Esquire, then being the Chief Judge of the State of Maryland…

‘Maryland; I, Samuel Chase, Chief Judge of the State of Maryland, do hereby certify all whom it may concern, that…personally appeared before me Thomas M’Creery, anddid repeat and subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian Religion, and take the oath required by the Act of Assembly of this State, entitled, An Act for Naturalization.’”

In the Maryland Supreme Court case of Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799, Justice Samuel Chase rendered the court’s opinion:

Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people.

By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

“Gay Month”: God’s Final Warning to America

“Gay Month”: God’s Final Warning to America

by JohnMcTernan

Verse of the Day

Leviticus 18:24,25 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Commentary

Fleeing Colorado fire: "Land vomiting out its inhabitants?"Fleeing Colorado fire: “Land vomiting out its inhabitants?”

If you examine the disasters hitting America, there is a vast increase from 25 years ago. The droughts and floods are showing that God is now in the process of setting the land up to “vomiteth” out the American people just as His states will happen. America is defiled with the blood of 55+ million babies and the homosexual agenda and other sins such as pornography and divorce. The nation is unclean and the land is defiled.

When I was first called into this ministry in 1987, there was maybe one massive disaster a year. Sometimes there were no disasters for a year. Now, the nation is being hit with 10 or more a year! In 2011 there were 14 $billion events which is more than one a month. Last year there were 11 such events.

There was no national “LGBT month” in 1987. Can you see how the disasters are matching the level of national sin and rebellion against God’s word?

I used to match every major disaster with national sin such as “Gay Pride Day”. I can no longer do this as many disasters are connected to long-term drought and heat waves. Some I can, like the recent Oklahoma tornadoes which are tied into homosexual events.

What is missing in these disasters hitting America are earthquakes. I have a “gut” feeling that massive, I mean massive, earthquakes are about to shake this nation. Earthquakes in the 8.0 to 9.0 are on the way. This is a part of the land “vomiting out its inhabitants”.

Extreme weather caused $110 billion in damage in 2012 06/13/13 There are more hurricanes on the way along with powerful earthquakes. Americans are about to be driven off the land for the national rebellion against God and His word.

Remember, and do not forget this: the disasters match the level of national rebellion against God and His word. God is holy and a nation can offend His holiness which America is grossly guilty of. Plus there is so little intercession by His church.

“All told the United States saw 11 weather and climate disasters last year with losses exceeding $1 billion in damages.The total puts 2012 second in total damages behind 2005, which saw four devastating hurricanes, including Katrina and Rita, and incurred $160 billion in costs.Hurricane Sandy was responsible for more than half of 2012′s total, with approximately $65 in claims.

The Midwest drought soaked up another $30 billion.Sandy also incurred the worst loss of life, with more than 130 fatalities tied to the storm that engulfed nearly 500 miles along the East Coast.But heat waves last year caused more than 100 deaths, and the largest drought in the United States since the 1930s had the federal government declaring drought disasters in 2,600 of the nation’s 3,143 counties.Drought conditions also led to several devastating wildfires that burned more than 9 million acres in 2012, NOAA reported.

The 11 billion-dollar disaster events in 2012 rank second behind the 14 events in 2011. Those 11 events killed more than 300 people and had “devastating economic effects” on the regions impacted, NOAA said.”

NOAA: Billion-Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters If you want to view all the events, just go to this site.

2 Peter 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

God’s Final Warning to America

The judgment matches level of national sinThe judgment matches level of national sin

Residents displaced byColorado wildfire see destruction firsthand 06/16/13 “Homosexual month” is not over yet. If the Supreme Court votes to advance the homosexual agenda with homosexual “marriage”, this could be the final act of rebellion against God. The last two months of June have seen awesome disasters hit Colorado. This year was far worse than last year. As the sin gets more bold, so the disasters get more intense.

“El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa said the fire’s destruction has made it difficult for his deputies to assess damage. Deputies have said “it looks like a nuclear bomb went off in some of those areas, and you can’t even recognize whether it was a house or some other kind of structure,” Maketa said. “That is the level of incineration and destruction that took place in some areas.”

Colorado PrideFest: Gay Pride isn’t just for downtown Denver anymore06/14/13 The theme of this is “Gay-er Pride”. Notice that it is not for “Denver anymore!” As the rebellion against God spreads, so the judgment is a perfect match for the rebellion against God’s word.

“The main event, of course, remains the Gay Pride Parade, and the 2013 version steps off from Cheesman Park at 9:30 a.m. Sunday, turning down Colfax Avenue toward Civic Center where the weekend-long PrideFest (running Saturday and Sunday) offers up booths, music and more than a few speeches to get the crowds revved up toward the next political goal.”

At least 400 homes destroyed in Colorado wildfire 06/14/13  The number is closer to 500. The worst disaster coincides with a “gay-er” Colorado. What is next for this state and the nation, as God has now warned for two years in a row!

“The number of homes destroyed  in the most destructive wildfire in Colorado history has risen to 400, officials said Friday night. Developers describe the Black Forest as the largest contiguous stretch of ponderosa pine in the United States. Once home to rural towns and summer cabins, it is now dotted with million-dollar homes and gated communities as a result of the state’s population boom over the past two decades.”

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example,suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Reposted with permission of the author.

Enhanced by Zemanta

IRS targeting paychecks…via American Minute

 Bill Federer

Withholding taxes from paychecks began JUNE 9, 1943.It was an emergency measure by Congress during World War II to get money to fight Hitler.

It was the idea of Beardsley Ruml, the treasurer of Macy’s Department Store who became chairman of New York’s Federal Reserve Bank.

Ruml was helped by Bernard Baruch and Milton Friedman.

The Federal Government would forgive people not paying their annual lump sum taxes at the end of 1941 if they signed up to have future taxes withheld from each paycheck.

It was called the “Pay-As-You-Go” tax.

It was part of the patriotic war enthusiasm which included slogans such as:

“UNCLE SAME NEEDS YOU”;

“BUY WAR BONDS”;

and

“SMASH THE AXIS-PAY YOUR TAXES.”

So much money came in from the “Pay-As-You-Go” tax with so few complaints that it continued after the war.

John F. Kennedy told Congress, April 20, 1961:

“Introduced during the war when the income tax was extended to millions of new taxpayers, the wage-withholding system has been one of the most important and successful advances in our tax system in recent times.

Initial difficulties were quickly overcome, and the new system helped the taxpayer no less than the tax collector.”

But Americans were not always so taxed.

Jefferson noted in his 2nd Annual Message, 1802:

“We are able, without a direct tax, without internal taxes, and without borrowing, to make large and effectual payments toward the discharge of our public debt and the emancipation of our posterity from that mortal canker…

It is an encouragement, fellow-citizens, of the highest order to proceed as we have begun in substituting economy for taxation.”

President Andrew Jackson stated in his 8th Annual Message, December 5, 1836:

“There is no such provision as would authorize Congress to collect together the property of the country, under the name of revenue, for the purpose of dividing it equally or unequally among the States or the people.

Indeed, it is not probable that such an idea ever occurred to the States when they adopted the Constitution.”

Andrew Jackson told Congress, May 27, 1830:

“Through the favor of an overruling and indulgent Providence our country is blessed with general prosperity and our citizens exempted from the pressure of taxation, which other less favored portions of the human family are obliged to bear.”

Jackson stated December 5, 1836:

“No people can hope to perpetuate their liberties who long acquiesce in a policy which taxes them for objects not necessary to the legitimate and real wants of their Government…

The practical effect of such an attempt must ever be to burden the people with taxes, not for the purposes beneficial to them, but to swell the profits of deposit banks and support a band of useless public officers…

There would soon be but one taxing power, and that vested in a body of men far removed from the people…

The States…would not dare to murmur at the proceedings of the General Government, lest they should lose their supplies;

all would be merged in a practical consolidation, cemented by widespread corruption, which could only be eradicated by one of those bloody revolutions which occasionally overthrow the despotic systems of the Old World.”

Jackson stated in his Farewell Address, 1837:

“There is, perhaps, no one power conferred on the Federal Government so liable to abuse as the taxing power…

Plain as these principles appear to be, you will yet find there is a constant effort to induce the General Government to go beyond the limits of its taxing power and to impose unnecessary burdens upon the people…to fasten upon the people this unjust and unequal system.”

Get the book, The Interesting History of Income Tax

Prior to 1913, other than during the Civil War, the Federal Government was financed primarily from tariff taxes on imports, called imposts.

President Franklin Pierce stated in his First Annual Message to Congress, December 5, 1853:

“Happily, I have no occasion to suggest any radical changes in the financial policy of the Government.

Ours is almost, if not absolutely, the solitary power of Christendom having a surplus revenue drawn immediately from imposts on commerce.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Christian roots of Dutch New Amsterdam / New York via American Minute

   Bill Federer

During its Golden Age, the Dutch Republic of the Seven United Netherlands had settlements around the world, including a monopoly on trade with Japan, Jakarta, Java and Asia.

They invented a way of financing these endeavors without taxes – the Amsterdam Stock Exchange.

People could buys shares in the Dutch East India Company whose ships sailed to Indonesia or Japan. It was the first modern stock market.

And in case the ships sank, the Dutch invented “insurance” companies.

The Dutch started a Dutch West India Company which sent Henry Hudson to find a water route west across America to the Pacific.

Though unsuccessful, Hudson claimed the land along the “Hudson” River, and founded the New Netherlands Colony, receiving its charter JUNE 3, 1621.

The Dutch began a New Amsterdam Stock Exchange which met along a street near the wall of their settlement.

In 1624, the Chamber of Amsterdam wrote articles for the Dutch Colony, establishing the Dutch Reformed denomination:

“They shall within their territory practice no other form of divine worship than that of the Reformed religion…

and thus by their Christian life and conduct seek to draw the Indians and other blind people to the knowledge of God and His word, without, however, persecuting any on account of his faith, but leaving each one the use of his conscience.”

The New Amsterdam Charter of Freedoms, June 7, 1629, gave land to wealthy “Patroons” who helped 50 families emigrate, stating:

“Colonists shall…in the speediest manner…find out ways and means whereby they may support a Minister and Schoolmaster, that thus the service of God and zeal for religion may not grow cool.”

One Dutch family that immigrated was the Roosevelt family, as Franklin D. Roosevelt told the Detroit Jewish Chronicle, March 7, 1935:

“All I know about the origin of the Roosevelt family in this country is that all branches bearing the name are apparently descended from Claes Martenssen Van Roosevelt, who came from Holland sometime before 1648.”

Beginning in 1639, Lutheran Germans, Swedes and Finns, as well as Anglicans from England, began immigrating, numbering 500 of the colony?’s 3,500 population in 1655.

Presbyterians erected their first meeting house on Eastern Long Island in 1640, and the first Jews arrived in the colony in 1654.

In 1664, the British took control and changed the colony’s name to New York.

The New Amsterdam Stock Exchange then became the New York Stock Exchange, referred to as Wall Street.

Though British established the Anglican Church, French Protestant Huguenots began arriving in 1680.

The New York Charter of Liberties and Privileges, (paragraph 27), passed October 30, 1683, stated:

“That no person or persons which profess faith in God by Jesus Christ shall at any time be any ways molested…But that…every such person…fully enjoy his or their…consciences in matters of religion…not using this Liberty to Licentiousness…

The respective Christian Churches now in practice within the City of New York….shall…enjoy…freedoms of their Religion in Divine Worship and Church discipline.”

The first Methodist meeting in the American Colonies was in New York City in 1766.

In 1781, was the first mention of a public Catholic worship service in New York.

In 1811, the New York Supreme Court’s Chief Justice, Chancellor Kent, stated in the case of Peoples v Ruggles:

“Christianity was parcel of the law…that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government…

The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity…

We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.”

In 1838, the New York State Legislature wrote:

“No people on the face of the globe are without a prevailing national religion….

With us it is wisely ordered that no one religion shall be established by law, but that all persons shall be left free in their choice and in their mode of worship.

Still, this is a Christian nation. Ninety-nine hundredths, if not a larger proportion, of our whole population, believe in the general doctrines of the Christian religion.

Our Government depends for its being on the virtue of the people, – on that virtue that has its foundation in the morality of the Christian religion.”

New York’s State Constitution, 1846, 1894, and 1938, stated in its Preamble:

“We, the People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement tovwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

A Surprise Attack before Dawn via American Minute

Bill Federer

A surprise attack before dawn on MAY 10, 1775, gave America one of its first victories of the Revolutionary War.

Just 3 weeks after Lexington and Concord, Ethan Allen led 83 Green Mountain Boys of Vermont, accompanied by Colonel Benedict Arnold, to capture Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain.

They overran it in the early morning while the British sentry was sleeping.

Ethan Allen, whose statue is in the U.S. Capitol‘s Statuary Hall, demanded immediate surrender.

The bewildered British captain asked in whose name such a request was being made.

Ethan Allen hotly retorted:

“In the Name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress.”

Fort Ticonderoga’s 50 cannons were incredibly moved by 25-year-old Colonel Henry Knox over 200 miles from New York across Vermont and New Hampshire to a hill overlooking Boston Harbor, forcing British ships to evacuate.

Three weeks after the capture of Fort Ticonderoga, Harvard President Samuel Langdon told the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, May 31, 1775:

“If God be for us, who can be against us?..May our land be purged from all its sins! Then the Lord will be our refuge and our strength, a very present help in trouble, and we will have no reason to be afraid, though thousands of enemies set themselves against us.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement to vwww.AmericanMinute.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

FEB. 18 – President’s Day-George Washington’s Birthday

American Minute with Bill Federer

FEB. 18 – President’s Day-George Washington’s Birthday

President’s Day is officially George Washington’s Birthday, who was born FEBRUARY 22, 1732, but the Uniform Monday Holiday Act of 1968 moved its observance to the 3rd Monday in February.Washington was unanimously chosen as the Army’s Commander-in-Chief, unanimously chosen as President of the Constitutional Convention, and unanimously chosen as the first U.S. President.

As General, Washington acknowledged God after victories throughout the Revolution and as President thanked God for the Constitution, October 3, 1789:

“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God…

I do recommend…rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks, for…the favorable interpositions of His Providence…we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war…for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government.”

Get the book, Prayers and Presidents

Washington was Anglican, and after the Revolution, Episcopalian.

His great-great-grandfather, Rev. Lawrence Washington, was an Anglican minister in Essex, England, who lost his position when the Puritans won the Civil War.

Washington’s great-grandfather, John Washington, immigrated to Virginia and became a planter, politician, and militia leader, who even had a local Anglican church renamed “Washington” in his honor. John Washington left to the church of a tablet with the Ten Commandments..

Washington’s grandfather, Lawrence, was

Anglican, as was his father, Augustine, who served as a vestryman at the Anglican Truro Parish.

George Washington became vestryman in Truro Parish, and was godfather in baptism to a niece and several nephews.

Washington had the Declaration of Independence read to his troops, then ordered chaplains placed in each regiment, stating July 9, 1776:

“The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.”

General Washington wrote at Valley Forge, May 2, 1778:

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.”

To the Delaware Indian Chiefs who brought three youths to be trained in American schools, General Washington stated, May 12, 1779:

“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.”

On October 2, 1775, General George Washington issued the order:

“Any…soldier who shall hereafter be detected playing at toss-up, pitch, and hustle, or any other games of chance…shall without delay be confined and punished…The General does not mean by the above to discourage sports of exercise or recreation, he only means to discountenance and punish gaming.”

On February 26, 1776, General Washington issued the orders:

“All…soldiers are positively forbid playing at cards and other games of chance. At this time of public distress men may find enough to do in the service of their God and their country, without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality.”

On July 4, 1775, General Washington ordered:

“The General…requires…observance of those articles of war…which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkenness; And.. .requires… punctual attendance of Divine Services.”

As recorded in The Writings of George Washington (March 10, 1778, 11:83-84, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934), General Washington ordered:

“At a General Court Marshall…Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy….and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Liett. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return.”

In his Farewell Address, 1796, Washington stated:

“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.”

American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement to vwww.AmericanMinute.com

Press Release from The Arkansas Sheriff’s Association on the 2nd Amendment

“The Arkansas Sheriff’s Association supports the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment rights of our citizens’. We recognize the recent increase in violence and mass shootings have raised questions relating to the sale and possession of firearms. The Arkansas Sheriff’s Association further believes that we must hold offenders responsible, not law abiding citizens.

The Arkansas Sheriff’s Association does support enforcement of the existing gun laws and the strengthening of current back ground checks including identifying individuals with mental health issues. The Arkansas Sheriff’s Association does not support legislation that restricts current gun possession or sales to our citizens that weakens our 2nd Amendment rights.

Thanks to Johnson County Sheriff, Jim Dorney, for the heads up!


Welcome to the Future

This is nothing more than intimidation by the federal government, ignoring laws and violating the trust of the people. This video needs to be shared far and wide. The reason for the raid will shock you! The tactics that are used are determined to instill fear. hat tip to my friend D for this post!

 A Disturbing Video….Federal Raid On A Water Company!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,965 other followers