“Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.”
American Minute with Bill Federer
FEB. 21 – JQA & the Bible
A bronze marker on the U.S. House floor indicates where Adams’ desk once stood.
John Quincy Adams was the only U.S President to serve in Congress after having been President.
African slaves were purchased at Muslim slave markets and brought to the Americas.
The annotated John Quincy Adams-A Bibliography, compiled by Lynn H. Parsons (Westport, CT, 1993, p. 41, entry#194), contains “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War and on Greece,” (The American Annual Register for 1827-28-29 (NY: 1830):
“The natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran…
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies…
In the 7th century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab…spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth…
He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as a part of his religion…The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.”
On September 26, 1810, John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary:
“I have made it a practice for several years to read the Bible through in the course of every year. I usually devote to this reading the first hour after I rise every morning…
I have this morning commenced it anew…this time with Ostervald’s French translation.”
In September of 1811, John Quincy Adams wrote to his son from St. Petersburg, Russia:
“My dear Son…You mentioned that you read to your aunt a chapter in the Bible or a section of Doddridge’s Annotations every evening. This information gave me real pleasure; for so great is my veneration for the Bible…
It is of all books in the world, that which contributes most to make men good, wise, and happy… My custom is, to read four to five chapters every morning immediately after rising from my bed…
It is essential, my son…that you should form and adopt certain rules…of your own conduct… It is in the Bible, you must learn them…
‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thy self.’ On these two commandments, Jesus Christ expressly says, ‘hang all the law and the prophets’.”
John Quincy Adams’ correspondence to his son is compiled in Letters of John Quincy Adams to his son, on the Bible and its Teachings, which contains his statement:
“No book in the world deserves to be so unceasingly studied, and so profoundly meditated upon asthe Bible.”
On March 13, 1812, John Quincy Adams noted:
“This morning I finished the perusal of the German Bible.”
“You ask me what Bible I take as the standard of my faith – the Hebrew, the Samaritan, the old English translation, or what? I answer, the Bible containing the Sermon on the Mount…
The New Testament I have repeatedly read in the original Greek, in the Latin, in the Geneva Protestant, in Sacy’s Catholic French translations, in Luther’s German translation, in the common English Protestant, and in the Douay Catholic translations.
I take any one of them for my standard of faith.”
On December 31, 1825, John Quincy Adams wrote in his diary:
“I rise usually between five and six…I walk by the light of the moon or stars, or none, about four miles, usually returning home…I then make my fire, and read three chapters of the Bible.”
Poet Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote concerning John Quincy Adams:
“No man could read the Bible with such powerful effect, even with the cracked and winded voice of old age.”
John Quincy Adams wrote:
“I speak as a man of the world to men of the world; and I say to you, Search the Scriptures! The Bible is the book of all others…not to be read once or twice or thrice through, and then laid aside, but to be read in small portions of one or two chapters every day.”
At the age of 77, John Quincy Adams was vice-president of the American Bible Society, where he stated, February 27, 1844:
The Bible carries with it the history of the creation, the fall and redemption of man, and discloses to him, in the infant born at Bethlehem, the Legislator and Saviour of the world.”
Get the book, Prayers and Presidents
American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement to vwww.AmericanMinute.com
United States Army Threatened With Lawsuit Over Chaplain’s Prayer to ‘Heavenly Father’ | Christian News Network
by Steven Ertelt
The Obama administration released new HHS mandate rules today that attempt to expand the number of religious groups that can opt out of the pro-abortion mandate — but that leaves religiously-run companies like Hobby Lobby out in the cold. Pro-life advocates oppose the mandate because it forces religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.
Thanks to a number of decisions in court related to lawsuits filed against the mandate by dozens of religious businesses and organizations, the Obama administration is under court order to revise the mandate. But the proposed changes don’t protect everyone who wants to opt out.
Although the proposed revisions provide some additional protections for religiously-affiliated organizations, companies owned and operated by people with religious objections to the mandate are not included in the expanded exemption rules.
“Today, the administration is taking the next step in providing women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while respecting religious concerns,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “We will continue to work with faith-based organizations, women’s organizations, insurers and others to achieve these goals.”
But the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a pro-life legal group representing Hobby Lobby, told LifeNews the proposed changes would still force the company to comply with the mandate. Read the rest at New HHS Mandate Rules Force Hobby Lobby, Any Religious Biz to Comply | LifeNews.com.
If this story by Eric Rush is true and I have no reason to doubt it, it is further evidence of the pretense of Christian belief by both Barack Obama and those who are in his administration. China has one of the worst record of persecuting Christians and of forcing abortions, in the world. But this is not the only consideration that this story enlightens us upon. It is further evidence of the lawlessness of Barack Obama and the total lack of any desire to advance the ability of the American people to recover from the mess that we are in. We can not blame this all on him, but the policies and programs that he promotes lead to further debt, more lawlessness, violence, destruction and they further promote a culture of death. It is a policy of divide and conquer and not a desire to lead.
I will not say that we are without hope as Christians because it is not true, our hope does not rest upon anything in this mortal world but only in our Lord Jesus Christ, our home is in heaven as is our treasure. I merely point this out as a notice that the prophecies that have been given us, seem to be in the process of being fulfilled and as instructed by Jesus Himself, it is our job to watch, listen, warn and be aware so that we are not caught unaware. God uses men to accomplish His goals and if this is the time that Jesus will return, God can use Barack Obama to accomplish this. We need to use our voices and warn high and low of the coming difficulties so that followers will not be caught unaware. We know that in the end time that we will face increased persecution and it is happening throughout the whole of the world to varying degrees. We have lost God’s grace by our embrace of abortion, homosexuality and all the other sins of the world, to expect that we would not face persecution would be to fly in the very face of the word of the Lord. Please click on the link above and read the story and please share as well. Thank you and God bless!
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!
There is a lot of discussion about State’s Rights and whether so many of the policies and regulations that are being proposed on the Federal Scale are in violation of the States Rights. Personally I think that many of them are, but one of the worst cases is the Federal Involvement in our schools. I think that a large portion of our educators, legislators, and laypeople are unaware that legally the federal government has no right to force any standards upon the schools. They may suggest, offer money for the policies that they want implemented, but they have no legal authority to force states to follow these standards.
How much influence do we want a federal government to have? When do we stop letting them force by bullying and threatening the schools in order to get policies in place that go totally against our moral values and common sense? We have in power an administration that uses bullying, threats, and even suing states in order to force their will upon the people of this country. How far do they go before it becomes treasonous? When you are in the process of destroying the very thing that you took an oath to protect, when does it become a violation? I am not saying that this leadership should be tried for treason, I am saying when are the people of this country and leaders in the separate states going to wake up and realize that what is being done to them is in violation of the Constitution and that they do have other options that to just answer the lawsuits in court and depend upon a Federal Court that may be just a guilty of violating their own oath of office.
Our founders intent was for the States to trump the Federal, for the Federal to be an arm of the State to promote the welfare of the States and the people. We have let it be turned around where the States are an aterthought and only seem to enjoy rights granted to them by the Federal Government and those are constantly being ignored or whittled away if they don’t fit the desires of whomever is in power at the time.
A DISCOURSE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES–
John C. Calhoun, Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun 
If it be possible still to doubt that the several States retained their sovereignty and independence unimpaired, strong additional arguments might be drawn from various other portions of the instrument—especially from the third article, section third, which declares, that— “treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” It might be easily shown that— “the United States” —mean here—as they do everywhere in the constitution—the several States in their confederated character—that treason against them, is treason against their joint sovereignty—and, of course, as much treason against each State, as the act would be against any one of them, in its individual and separate character. But I forbear. Enough has already been said to place the question beyond controversy. Read the entire discourse at Online Library of Liberty!
The following post is reprinted with permission and it is a must read for anyone with children and grandchildren. It is also a must read for educators. Please do take time to check the links and read the other posts available!
Debunking the Common Core “The Emperor’s New Clothes” Narrative….
- by Gretchen Logue
- January 7, 2013
…and why are education reformers/politicians ascribing to fairy tales for policy?
Should Common Core State Standards be considered an educational version of the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”? The standards are the promise of new clothes for education but is there basis for believing there are any clothes at all? From Wikipedia:
“The Emperor’s New Clothes” (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder) is a short tale byHans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!” The tale has been translated into over a hundred languages.
Christopher H. Tienken, Editor of AAASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice provided commentary in the Winter 2011 publication entitled Common Core State Standards: An Example of Data-less Decision Making.
His research may just expose the standards to be unfit and fallacy to those who are critical thinkers asking for data determining their stated validity. This article should be studied by educators, politicians, taxpayers, to understand the colossal farce Common Core standards are in terms of providing promises of educational improvement for American students as they are unproven and untested.
Tienken writes the standards have not been validated empirically and no metric has been set to monitor the intended and unintended consequences they will have on the education system and children (Mathis, 2010). So why would governors and private trade organizations spend millions of taxpayer dollars on theories instead of verifiable researched data? The CCSS proponents have bought into these two arguments:
- America’s children are “lagging” behind international peers in terms of academic achievement, and
- the economic vibrancy and future of the United States relies upon American students outranking their global peers on international tests of academic achievement because of the mythical relationship between ranks on those tests and a country’s economic competitiveness.
Where’s the data supporting the CCSS proponents’ arguments? There isn’t much put forth by the education reformers. So why are states and school districts implementing unproven and untested theories? He defines the acceptance/lack of data for the unproven and untested CCSS assessments and implementation allegedly designed to enable students to become “globally competitive” with such sentences/phrases as:
- An unbelievable suspension of logic and evidence
- To believe that economic strength of the United States relies on how students rank on the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) or the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), rather than reliance on policy (tax, trade, health, labor, finance, monetary, housing, natural resources policy)…”is like believing in the tooth fairy”
- The “critical skills necessary to compete in the 21st century” are repackaged 19th century ideas and skills…they are “inert, sterile, socially static”…the CCSS are stuck in a curricular time machine set in 1858
- Connecting an individual’s education achievement on a standardized test to a nation’s economic future is not empirically or logically acceptable and using that mythical connection for large-scale policymaking is civically reckless…when school administrators implement programs and policies built on those faulty arguments, they commit education malpractice
- More countries with national standards underperformed the US than did countries without national standards
- To think that every student in this country should be made to learn the same thing is illogical—it lacks face validity…we should have learned from the Soviet Union that central planning does not work in the long-run
- Standardization and testing are so entrenched in Singapore that every attempt to diversity the system has failed, leaving Singapore a country that has high test scores but no creativity
- (CCSS) creates a standardizing apparatus…we should respect differences among children, not try to extinguish them…there is a lot more going on here on the societal level than meets the eye…it’s more complex than the creators and vendors of the standards either understand or wish to present
- Children have a right to a quality education. School leaders, those who prepare them, and the people who lead our professional organizations have a duty to help provide the quality…if some education leaders choose to drink the snake oil then they should expect to get sick. If some help sell it, they should resign.
He backs up his findings with 48 independent referenced sources. It is worth your time to read his commentary that destroys the CCSS proponents’ arguments with methodical precision based on actual data. Compare/contrast his research/reference with the data CCSSO and the NGA use:
Many school districts or schools have “data committees” that make school-widedecisions based on some type of data. Surely there must be quality data available publically to support the use of the CCSS to transform, standardize, centralize and essentially delocalize America’s public education system. The official website for the CCSS claims to provide such evidence. The site alleges that the standards are “evidence based” and lists two homegrown documents to “prove” it: Myths vs Facts (NGA, 2010) and the Joint International Benchmarking Report (NGA, 2008).
The Myths document presents claims that the standards have “made use of a large and growing body of knowledge” (p. 3). Knowledge derives in part from carefully controlled scientific experiments and observations so one would expect to find references to high quality empirical research to support the standards.
When I reviewed that “large and growing body of knowledge” offered by the NGA, I found that it was not large, and in fact built mostly on one report, Benchmarking for Success, created by the NGA and the CCSSO, the same groups that created these standards; Hardly independent research.
The Benchmarking report has over 135 end notes, some of which are repetitive references. Only four of the cited pieces of evidence could be considered empirical studies related directly to the topic of national standards and student achievement.
The remaining citations were newspaper stories, armchair magazine articles, op-ed pieces, book chapters, notes from telephone interviews, and several tangential studies.
Many of the citations were linked to a small group of standardization advocates and did not represent the larger body of empirical thought on the topic”.
Tienken’s report needs to be sent to school boards, superintendents, state educational agencies, educational reform groups, governors and state legislators for their response to his research and conclusions. These private and/or public entities need to asked why they support common core standards and provide the data to back up their beliefs and use of the standards. If you get shocked faces and declarations from these groups/politicians such as “I do whatever _________ tells me to” (fill in the blank: state agency, federal government, governor, etc), you know the right to direct your school’s educational direction is in dire jeopardy.
Tienken writes those who perpetuate bad ideas based on flawed data are practicing poor leadership. If some school leaders and their organizations do not want to stand up for children then they should stand down and let those who are will assume the leadership reins.
How do you believe these organizations/politicians will respond (if they do) to Tienken’s research? Tienken welcomed rebuttal on his 2011 commentary:
“I welcome your rebuttals but please remember: Leave the opinions and ideology behind and bring the evidence”.
Do the CCSS proponents have anything other than opinions and ideology? This commentary was published in Winter 2011. I haven’t seen any data backing up CCSS proponents’ assertions, have you? That’s odd as they state CCSS is data driven. If they insist CCSS should be data driven, shouldn’t the foundational theory of their reforms consist of verifiable data to determine the veracity of their argument?
Dr. Tienken’s academic profile:
Christopher Tienken, Ed.D. is an assistant professor of Education Administration at Seton Hall University. He has public school administration experience as a PK-12 assistant superintendent, middle school principal, and elementary school assistant principal. He began his career in education as an elementary school teacher. Dr Tienken’s research interests include the effect and influence of professional development on teacher practice and student achievement, the construct validity of high-stakes standardized tests as decision-making tools about student achievement and school effectiveness, and curricular interventions used in schools to improve achievement. His research about the effects of professional development on student achievement has been recognized by the Institute of Education Sciences and the National Staff Development Council awarded him the Best Research Award in 2008.
When the United States of America was formed there were many forms of government that were considered. One of them was a monarchy but this was the very type of governance that they were fleeing. They established a republic in the hopes that this was what would be the best for all the people. Something that would give them all the chance of a future without being under the thumb of rulers that had only their own interests in mind most of the time. They did not want the people to wind up a nation of servants.
And yet here we are. Our leaders have brought us to the very place that we ran away from. The place that many of the founders laid down their lives and fortunes to give us something better. Not only did they sacrifice, but a selfish and self centered nation is in the process of erasing them from the very history that they sacrificed for. They are being repainted as selfish men who had no other desire than to profit for themselves, without any real regard to the true history that shows how much they actually lost in money and life.
The people of this country have given control to a few men and women who lie to them with glib tongues and illusions to make it appear as if they themselves are not responsible for anything and that it is always someone else fault. That if we don’t give them what they want we will be destroy. A constant fear being laid upon our souls as if they are the only thing that stands between us and eternal destruction. And if anyone thinks that I am referring to any particular party here, I am not. Neither of them know how to lead. None of them seem to even understand and care how the country was founded or the sacrifices that were made.
Instead the current generation is so far from the sacrifice as to simply be greedy hogs simply looking for the next way they can profit from our despair. They use fear as a tool and our money to line their own pockets. They lie as fast as they open their mouths and tell anyone and all whatever they think that will get them what they desire. They take no responsibility for their own actions, even when those actions cost the lives of so many good men and women.
The have abdicated their own power for profit, or grabbed power that they have no right to in order to subvert the Constitution and enslave the men and women that they took an oath to protect and defend. They give away our secrets to our enemies, turn their backs on our allies, and destroy our country in so many ways that it is impossible to keep up with. They are constantly imposing new regulations than cripple our economy or stifle business’.
With the stroke of a pen our President declares that abortion must be made available and therefore anyone who doesn’t wish to provide is in the wrong and must pay through the nose. If this were anyone else, forcing their ideas upon some other country, they would and have been declared dictators. And yet somehow because he was elected President those that approve of his actions, go right along, even though the previous President was maligned right and left for doing similar actions.
Since when does two wrongs make a right? Since when is it okay for someone to break the law simply because they are on the other side of the fence? Should we not hold our own leaders to a higher standard than we hold the rest of the world? Since when does it become alright for our guy but not for yours? Evil is evil no matter who commits it. Wrong is wrong no matter what letter comes after their name as in political party.
The people of this country voted for a President!! A man to lead them not a man that they were expected to serve. We voted for a continuation of our county. We were not asked to vote for a monarchy!!!! And yet it seems as if that is what our leaders feel is due them.
When the people of Israel decided that they wanted a King, God warned them of what to expect. It looks an awful lot like what we have right now. The difference is that we didn’t ask for it and it is being forced upon us.
1 Samuel 8
Good News Translation (GNT)
10 Samuel told the people who were asking him for a king everything that the Lord had said to him. 11 “This is how your king will treat you,” Samuel explained. “He will make soldiers of your sons; some of them will serve in his war chariots, others in his cavalry, and others will run before his chariots. 12 He will make some of them officers in charge of a thousand men, and others in charge of fifty men. Your sons will have to plow his fields, harvest his crops, and make his weapons and the equipment for his chariots. 13 Your daughters will have to make perfumes for him and work as his cooks and his bakers. 14 He will take your best fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his officials. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your grapes for his court officers and other officials. 16 He will take your servants and your best cattle[a] and donkeys, and make them work for him. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks. And you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that time comes, you will complain bitterly because of your king, whom you yourselves chose, but the Lordwill not listen to your complaints.”
When Noah Webster wrote this public letter to the dissenting members of the Convention of Pennsylvania, published in the Daily Advertiser of New York on the 31 of December, 1787, he could not foresee a time when land owners in the United States of America would be even more restricted in many ways that what they faced at the time in Europe. With the EPA and many other government agencies, we have gone far beyond the restrictions that they faced then. Now we have to have the government approve what we build, what we till and plant, how much dust we are allowed to stir up, and even how we use any water on our property. They can declare it a wetland and fine you or forbid you from using it even if it has no water on it and is surrounded by a subdivision. I wonder what he would say today?
I wonder at his thought at the Constitution that he helped to establish would be perverted in the ways that it has been to become instead of an acclamation of our freedom and rights to a tool being used to limit us from those freedoms and rights? I wonder what he would say to those currently trying to limit our rights to bear arms?
“America” [Noah Webster]
To the DISSENTING MEMBERS of the late Convention Of Pennsylvania.
But to complete the list of unalienable rights, you would insert a clause in your declaration, that every body shall, in good weather, hunt on his own land, and catch fish in rivers that are public property. Here, Gentlemen, you must have exerted the whole force of your genius! Not even the all-important subject of legislating for a worldcan restrain my laughter at this clause! As a supplement to that article of your bill of rights, I would suggest the following restriction:—“That Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.”—This article is of just as much consequence as the 8th clause of your proposed bill of rights.
But to be more serious, Gentlemen, you must have had in idea the forest-laws in Europe, when you inserted that article; for no circumstance that ever took place in America, could have suggested the thought of a declaration in favor of hunting and fishing. Will you forever persist in error? Do you not reflect that the state of property in America, is directly the reverse of what it is in Europe? Do you not consider, that the forest-laws in Europe originated in feudal tyranny, of which not a trace is to be found in America? Do you not know that in this country almost every farmer is Lord of his own soil? That instead of suffering under the oppression of a Monarch and Nobles, a class of haughty masters, totally independent of the people, almost every man in America is a Lord himself—enjoying his property in fee? Where then the necessity of laws to secure hunting and fishing? You may just as well ask for a clause, giving licence for every man to till his own land, or milk his own cows. The Barons in Europe procured forest-laws to secure the right of hunting on their own land, from the intrusion of those who had no property in lands. But the distribution of land in America, not only supersedes the necessity of any laws upon this subject, but renders them absolutely trifling. The same laws which secure the property in land, secure to the owner the right of using it as he pleases. Read more at the Online Library of Liberty!
The Federal Convention, 17 September 1787
In the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the need for a bill of rights, Anti-Federalists generally believed that the absence of a written declaration was a major defect of the proposed Constitution. Without a bill of rights, they claimed, the government may become one of unlimited powers and trample on the rights and liberties of the people. Most Federalists argued that a written declaration of rights was unnecessary in theory and ineffectual in practice. In practical terms, Federalists claimed that the people’s rights and liberties are protected by the numerous constitutional safeguards that provide for mutual checks among the departments of government. Further, they insisted, the real security for the people’s rights is achieved by connecting the interests of the rulers with the interests of the people so that the rulers will have no motive to invade the rights of the people; or they argued that the true security for rights and the preservation of liberty can only be achieved by the ongoing perseverance of a freedom-loving people of sound sense and honest hearts. In theoretical terms, many Federalists claimed that the very idea of a constitution of enumerated and limited powers removes the need for a bill of rights. Elaborating on the notion of constitutionalism, they maintained that because the people delegate power to the government, and not vice versa, all powers that are not delegated are necessarily reserved to them as men or as citizens. The enumeration of the rights of the people carries with it the potential for abuse, for in the future it may be presumed that only those rights listed belong to the people. And it would be sheer folly, they said, to attempt to enumerate all the rights of mankind Online Library of Liberty
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?
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)
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:
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
“A Citizen of New Haven” [Roger Sherman]
The Letters: I-II
New Haven Gazette, 18 and 25 December 1788
Observations on the Alterations Proposed as Amendments to the new Federal Constitution.
6. It is proposed that no commercial treaty should be made without the consent of two-thirds of the senators, nor any cession of territory, right of navigation or fishery, without the consent of three-fourths of the members present in each branch of congress.
It is provided by the constitution that no commercial treaty shall be made by the president without the consent of two-thirds of the senators present, and as each state has an equal representation and suffrage in the senate, the rights of the state will be as well secured under the new constitution as under the old; and it is not probable that they would ever make a cession of territory or any important national right without the consent of congress.
7. 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
Observations on the New Federal Constitution
The immediate security of the civil and domestic rights of the people will be in the government of the particular states. And as the different states have different local interests and customs which can be best regulated by their own laws, it should not be expedient to admit the federal government to interfere with them, any farther than may be necessary for the good of the whole. The great end of the federal government is to protect the several states in the enjoyment of those rights, against foreign invasion, and to preserve peace and a beneficial intercourse among themselves; and to regulate and protect our commerce with foreign nations.
These were not sufficiently provided for by the former articles of confederation, which was the occasion of calling the late Convention to make amendments. This they have done by forming a new constitution containing the powers vested in the federal government, under the former, with such additional powers as they deemed necessary to attain the ends the states had in view, in their appointment. And to carry those powers into effect, they thought it necessary to make some alterations in the organization of the government: this they supposed to be warranted by their commission.
The powers vested in the federal government are clearly defined, so that each state still retain its sovereignty in what concerns its own internal government, and a right to exercise every power of a sovereign state not particularly delegated to the government of the United States. The new powers vested in the United States, are, to regulate commerce; provide for a uniform practice respecting naturalization, bankruptcies, and organizing, arming and training the militia; and for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States; and for promoting the progress of science in the mode therein pointed out. There are some other matters which Congress has power under the present confederation to require to be done by the particular states, which they will be authorized to carry into effect themselves under the new constitution; these powers appear to be necessary for the common benefit of the states, and could not be effectually provided for by the particular states
Read more from letters from Roger Sherman and our other Founders at Online Library of Liberty
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
–The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
“The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
“Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.”
–Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
–Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
–History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.
“I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. That God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as thereby he is not the author or approver of sin. That he creates all things, and preserves and governs all creatures and all their actions, in a manner perfectly consistent with the freedom of will in moral agents, and the usefulness of means. That he made man at first perfectly holy, that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death, and to the pains of hell forever.
“I believe that God having elected some of mankind to eternal life, did send his own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the gospel offer: also by his special grace and spirit, to regenerate, sanctify and enable to persevere in holiness, all who shall be saved; and to procure in consequence of theirrepentance and faith in himself their justification by virtue of his atonement as the only meritorious cause.
“I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, joined by the bond of the covenant.
“I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment.”
–The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.
Read More at About.com Christianity
I am truly sorry to say that this is happening in my state!
Still don’t believe the attacks on our religious freedoms are escalating? Well, they are, and they are getting more and more outrageous. Today, Liberty Institute sent a demand letter to the U.S. State Department on behalf of an ordained Lutheran pastor who was actually denied a passport because he wore his clerical collar in his passport photograph.
In September, Indiana Pastor Mark Powell applied for his passport with the State Department’s National Passport Information Center and subsequently, received a denial letter. According to the letter, the State Department rejected Rev. Powell’s passport application because in his photograph he is “not shown in normal attire.”
Rev. Powell wears his clerical collar everyday as part of his religious beliefs and practices as a pastor. The State Department’s denial violates federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment. This is an infringement upon Rev. Powell’s religious liberty rights and another example of the federal government trying to restrict our religious freedoms. Liberty Watch
I will give fair warning that some people might find this post offensive and it is not my intent to offend. What my intent is is to bring to the forefront a problem that is only spoken about with people you trust to a certain degree and a problem that is covered up and plastered over in political correctness to another degree.
Let me start by saying that I am awaiting God‘s Kingdom where we can all live together and that immigration itself is a great thing. What I do have a problem with is the open border mentality that seems to say, let anyone come across no matter their purpose. Not everyone who enters this country wants either the best for themselves, or the best for the people of this country. As parents we have a responsibility for our children to protect them from harm. From drugs, from those who would molest or rape them, and from those who would use them in many other ways for evil. Turning a blind eye to the evil that comes across the border simply enables even more of it to come across.
There are those who say, yes, but it isn’t Christian to block people from entering the best country in the world! And I agree! However, God Himself tells us that we should obey the law does He not? Those that come here illegally are not following God’s will, does that make their actions right? There is a process to obtain entrance to the country, but like other laws, there are some who think that it doesn’t apply to them. They want what they want and they will take it regardless of the cost to others or the rights that they infringe upon.
Another question to ask is are we truly aiding those who want to come here for a better life. If by our actions we are allowing them to be abused and used by others for an evil purpose, in my mind this tells me we are doing the work of evil and not good. The use of drugs and the use of innocents to carry and distribute those drugs has increased and will continue to increase if we simply turn a blind eye to it. Spreading out from that is murder, rape, robbery, and all other immoral actions. We see increased costs to everyone, not in money, although that is a factor, but in lives lost and heartache as well.
Laws are established by a government in order to protect the borders and people within that country. We as citizens have a responsibility to follow the laws or work with in the system to change them. We as Christians owe first to God! This is not a question of God over government, this is a question of respect for God’s will over people’s desire. People desiring to do harm to others do not have the right, nor do we owe them the opportunity, to break the laws of the country that we live in, in order to fulfill their desires. If we do this, we are saying that lawlessness should prevail!
God bless you, watch the video below, consider the cost and the loss, then if you see fit add to the discussion!
My friend and fellow followers of Christ, for years we have had those that don’t share our values trying to tell our children that we are the ones that are wrong, they are going about it in an even more insidious way and we need to be aware of it so that we can stop it. Please read and pass this around so that we can prevent more children and parents from experiencing what Susan has. And so that we know what is being told to our children and done to them behind our backs. God bless!
Beware of your Pediatrician & School Counselors, Americans!
Sounds crazy, right? But it’s not. Many pediatricians have become Progressive activists. How many of you are being groomed by these political agents? Let me describe the grooming process: when your child is about 8 or nine, the pediatrician starts introducing the idea that at some time in the near future, they will want to spend time alone with your child- to get them ready for the time when they first go to a doctor on their own, without their parents. Sounds cozy, huh? A pediatrician that cares so much about your kid that they want to help ease them into their first, adult solo physical checkup.
Then, at around 11 years old, the pediatrician will actually ask the parent to step out of the room ‘for a few minutes’. Then at around 12, the pediatrician will tell you that you must leave the room when the kid is 13 years old. MY pediatrician just blatantly LIED to me and told me that Washington State Law demands that I leave the room.
Now, Parents, I can tell you that I always told my pediatricians, “No. That will not happen with my daughter. I will be here to ensure that she is ok. “ They always were annoyed, but left it be. I have a new pediatrician who just told me that I MUST leave the room when my daughter turns 13- which will happen in August. I was enraged. I told her that this would never happen. Further, I asked her why she & other pediatricians kept demanding this. Please read the rest of Short Little Rebels post and experience with this at her site: Short Little Rebel
I reprinted this from Sami at Village of the Banned and Voting American; If you have never visited his sites and you love this country, he is a patriot first and foremost and you may learn a few things.. But be forewarned, he does not hold back and he is very passionate. He also has a cadre of very impassioned followers who are ready and willing to engage you. So if you are looking to learn or want to debate, it is a great place to check out. God bless!
Bill of Rights
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
March 4th 1789
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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”
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.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I haven’t really written anything about the Supreme Court’s ruling this week that the Healthcare Bill that passed, is actually constitutional based on the fact that it is a tax. I have a lot of questions and I do not like the answers. I am going to pose some of those questions to you my friends and would like you to consider the answer.
- Are there now any limits on what Congress can require us to purchase?
- Can Congress now tax us for our lifestyle?
- Has Congress given one un-elected person in the form of the HHS Secretary, the power to decide what is the correct lifestyle we need to live?
- Can this be used for Religious Beliefs? By that I mean can the HHS Secretary decide that a Christian lifestyle would be dangerous and therefore anyone who practices our faith could be taxed so much that we can not survive?
- Have we gone from limited government to unlimited government?
- If this is not repealed by the next Congress and it continues in force, can it be stopped at any other point?
I realize that some of these are questions without answers, but the possibilities that I see are not ones that lead to good. This seems to me to be mans attempt to force utopia onto his fellow man. Social Engineering at it’s worst. I know that there are some who look forward to the benefits, but I ask you to take a closer look at the probabilities that mortal man will use this to try and force those that don’t agree with his idea of utopia, to accept it anyway. Just as Nebuchadezzer tried to force Shadrah, Meshach, and Abedniggo to bow down to his golden idol, we will probably be pressured to abide by rules and regulations that we find repugnant. But like the “three men in the fire” we have reassurance that God will be with us and we can trust that whatever they try to force upon us, as long as we have faith and stand true to the word of God, He will be the “fourth man in the fire.”