U.S. Senate Chaplain Barry C. Black was elected in 2003.
Posted on the official U.S. Senate website is:
“Chaplain’s Office – Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State.
The first Senate, meeting in New York City on APRIL 25, 1789, elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provost, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first Chaplain.
During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate’s faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation.”
This was a continuation of the practice of the Continental Congress during the Revolution, as Ben Franklin remarked in 1787:
“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.”
The first Senate Chaplain was Bishop Samuel Provoost, who conducted George Washington’s Inaugural Service at New York’s St. Paul’s Chapel.
Bishop Samuel Provoost preached the first Episcopal ordination sermon in St. George’s Chapel, New York City, July 15, 1787:
“We are occupied in the…most important business that can possibly engage the human mind…that…in the Hands of God, we shall be made the happy instruments of turning many from Darkness to Light, and from the Power of Satan to the Knowledge and Love of the Truth…
Lay no other foundation than that which is already laid…upon the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and him crucified…
Let us all unite our most strenuous endeavors, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ may run and be glorified, till the earth be filled with the Knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.”
From 1789-2013, the 62 Senate Chaplains have been Christian:
Seventh-day Adventist 1.
Occasionally members of other faiths have been invited to offer prayers.
The U.S. Senate Chaplain after World War II was Peter Marshall, who prayed:
“Our liberty is under God and can be found nowhere else. May our faith be not merely stamped upon our coins, but expressed in our lives.”
Peter Marshall’s son, Peter Marshall, Jr., together with David Manuel, wrote the best-selling book, The Light and the Glory, which traced the Hand of Providence in the founding of America.
On February 7, 1984, President Reagan addressed the National Association of Secondary School Principals:
“God…should never have been expelled from America’s schools.
As we struggle to teach our children…we dare not forget that our civilization was built by men and women who placed their faith in a loving God.
If Congress can begin each day with a moment of prayer…so then can our sons and daughters.”
American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward. reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement to vwww.AmericanMinute.com
‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened’ -Alexander Solzhenitsyn via American Minute
Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval.
But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’”
Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned for eight years by Joseph Stalin, as he described in his autobiographical lecture, printed in the Nobel Foundation’s publication, Les Prix Nobel, 1971:
“I was arrested on the grounds of what the censorship had found in my correspondence with a school friend, mainly because of certain disrespectful remarks about Stalin, although we referred to him in disguised terms.
A further basis for the ‘charge’ were drafts of stories and reflections which had been found in my map case.”
“Crisis alone permitted the authorities to demand-and obtain-total submission and all the necessary sacrifices from its citizens.”
Stalin controlled citizens through “fear and food,” keeping them in constant fear of organizing against him by carting people away in the night, and intentionally keeping a food shortage so people did not have resources to rebel.
Stalin engineered a famine in his war against the kulaks that killed millions. Richard Pipes commented on the absolute power of Russia’s Josef Stalin in his book,Communism-A History (Random House, 2001):
“To break the resistance of the peasants in the Ukraine, the North Caucasus, and the Kazakhstan, Stalin inflicted on these areas in 1932-33 an artificial famine, shipping out all the food from entire districts and deploying the army to prevent the starving peasants from migrating in search of nourishment.
It is estimated that between 6 and 7 million people perished in this man-made catastrophe.”
Richard Pipes continued, that after this:
‘The revolution needs the enemy…The revolution needs for its development its antithesis.’…
And if enemies were lacking, they had to be fabricated.
In 1934, a prominent Bolshevik, Sergei Kirov, the party boss of Lenningrad, was assassinated under mysterious conditions…evidence points to Stalin…
Kirov was gaining too much popularity in party ranks for Stalin’s comfort.
His assassination brought Stalin two advantages: it rid him of a potential rival and provided a rationale for instigating a vast campaign against alleged anti-Soviet conspirators…
Purges of the 1930′s were a terror campaign that in indiscriminate ferocity and number of victims had no parallel in world history…
Authorities…beat them until they confess to their crimes they have not committed.”
Solzhenitsyn was Awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, but the Communist government did not allow him to leave the country to accept it.
Solzhenitsyn began publishing “The Gulag Archipelago in 1973, and in response to international pressure, the Soviet Union expelled him on FEBRUARY 13, 1974.
The following year in Washington, D.C., Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned:
“I…call upon America to be more careful…because they are trying to weaken you…to disarm your strong and magnificent country in the face of this fearful threat-one that has never been seen before in the history of the world.”
“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!
This story if true is disturbing on many levels. It says nothing of the executive branch requiring any approval from Congress, or even that Congress has approved anything.
Excerpt “The Obama administration is currently drawing up a set of rules about how the US military can defend against or conduct cyberattacks, the New York Times reports. The Obama administration is also allowing intelligence agencies to declare potential threats. But even if these threats are nothing more than a suspicion without evidence, the military now has the authority to attack foreign nations, regardless of whether or not the US is involved in a conflict with them.
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!
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood” James Madison
“The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy of monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
“Work as if you were to live a hundred years. Pray as if you were to die tomorrow.” Benjamin Franklin
“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.” Benjamin Franklin
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!
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
The Future of Liberty in a Post-Literate Culture
by PETER FARMER December 14, 2012
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-future-of-liberty-in-a-post-literate-culture?f=must_reads#ixzz2FJelYttT
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
“It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to; and well has it been said, that if there had been no God, mankind would have been obliged to imagine one.” Paulding, Life of Washington Vol. 2 p. 209
hat tip to Biltrix for this video
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
Whatever your politics are, evil can not be allowed to continue within the darkness, we must become enlightened in order to rid the world of it’s presence!
Evil acts against innocent people will not be stopped and will only worsen unless if good people rise up to make it stop.
The same cretins who’ve been committing identity theft against me ever since thatPolitical Moms blogger contest this past spring have also been doing it to The Lonely Conservative (who won the contest) in addition to far, FAR, worse – and it has been escalating:
If you’re a regular reader you’re aware of the harassment I’ve endured since the Top 25 Political Moms contest this past spring. It all started when a few of us conservative bloggers noticed that the progressive bloggers were extremely far-left and they were telling their readers to vote for their blogs because they wouldn’t want a conservative winning and spreading “dangerous family values.” Well, that got our ire up a little bit, so we responded in kind, and dubbed some of them “commie mommies.” It’s not like one or two of them didn’t already refer to themselves that way, so we didn’t see any harm in it. No big deal, right? To make a long story short, they tried to get us disqualified, so we all agreed to remove any negative posts about the competition. Please read the rest of this post at Zilla’s site!
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.
My friend Grumpy Elder has a story on a Vet that is being forced from his home. Now this is bad enough but to add insult to injury, the man is being forced to exhume his wife who is buried on the property and move her as well. I realize that sometimes bad things happen, but this is a case where there are other options available if the people involve were willing to work with the man. Please take time to read the rest of the story at Grumpy’s Opinions
I’m no lawyer at all, but it looks like Warren C. Bodeker is getting a raw deal, I have no idea what can be done about it except to ask if someone knows a smart, obnoxious lawyer with some ethics willing to take on another obnoxious lawyer…….
A legal fund has been set up, details are at the bottom of the article linked below..
Publicity will help the old gentleman, and won’t help the trustee’s law practice any, so make sure the story gets around….
Read the rest and watch the video at Grumpy’s Opinions…..
Thank all of you so much for your prayers. I wanted to let you know that prayer works and God is still in control. My back has eased up quite a bit. It is not totally healed but it is not locking up and I can move without extreme pain. Thank you all again and God bless you everyone!
As President and the Leader of the country, I would hope that any one who would have had that responsibility would have done the same thing. I respect the fact that Mr. Obama did so! However I have found little else to respect in the actions of Mr. Obama.
Healthcare in this country was the best that was available in the world before Mr. Obama and the Democrat‘s took control of this country. It was against the law to turn anyone with a legitimate emergency away and hospital emergency rooms took care of those who needed the help. I realize that the wait was often long and people abused the services, but that is a minor problem if you consider the services available or not available in the rest of the world. If you were not happy with the way your insurance company was doing business, you had a right to go somewhere else, or you could appeal to the state and bring your case before the public. You had the opportunity to change things. If the Healthcare bill is not struck down by the Supreme Court, and the government has control, you will no longer be able to change anything. Every health care issue you face will be decided by appointees of politicians who only owe their loyalty to those who appointed them. A prime example is the forcing of Christians to provide abortion and the morning after pill which triggers an abortion in the woman taking the pill.
This is another example of the way that this administration feels about life. It seems to feel that there is nothing that man should not do in order to do what they think is the right thing. If it is killing thousands of people with drones, becoming involved in more and more wars, refusing aid to countries unless they are willing to sacrifice their morals and provide abortions, or denying those who find the killing of babies to be morally repugnant or against the principle of their faith.
But it is not just this that bothers me, although it is a major factor and the reason that I did not vote for Mr. Obama in the first place. I had voted Democrat most of my life, but hearing Mr. Obama stand before the Illinois house and defend killing babies that were aborted and yet born alive, shocked me to my core. I was naive enough to believe a lot of Democrats who stated that they would like to see less abortion, but here was a man who wanted to see babies born alive, killed!
Another thing that bothers me is the way that Mr. Obama uses drones to kill those whom he thinks are enemies to our country. It bothers me considerably that one man would think that he has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. It truly would bother me even if there was a panel that made that decision, but not nearly to the extent that having one man make that choice, does. We see examples of one person making the decision that others do not have the right to live all the time. Sometimes they base that decision upon their “religion” or their “race”, or even how much money they have. We don’t applaud these people, we often have names for them such as serial killers, or terrorists. Does being the leader of a country make a difference?
Mr. Obama himself doesn’t seem to think so, he has denounced people like the former leaders of Egypt, Libya, and the current leader of Syria.I I am not saying that Mr. Obama is the same as them, but he seems to be headed in that direction and it doesn’t seem to bother him or his followers. When do you go past the point that killing is justified and begin killing just because you can? Does each time make the next one easier?
We have also seen Mr. Obama turn a blind eye to the killing of the Christians in the Middle East. Not only has he very often failed to even condemn those who are committing the murders, he has, in some cases, embraced those very ones who have done the killing.
You have to judge a leader by their actions and every chance Mr. Obama has had to make a decision that would lead to embracing life, he has chosen death instead. When he has had the chance to show respect for those who do choose life, he has chosen to mock and denigrate their choices. When he has the opportunity to lead by example, he chooses to absent himself from the process and leave it to surrogates that he knows will push death over life, and yet he can pretend that it is not really his choice.
Even in the choices that he has made in the matter of the economy or our independence, he has made choices that lead to a decrease in our material wealth, and to a further dependence on both the government and on the decisions of those who would rather see us cease to exist. We are becoming enslaved and dependent on the good will of other countries under the policies of Mr. Obama.
So, when I hear someone who is promoting the reelection of Mr. Obama say, “Oh, by the way, he kill Bin Laden,” I find it very troubling. It makes me wonder at the intelligence of these people who seem to find it so wonderful. Do they truly believe that this is the major factor in the reelection of a leader? Or do they believe that we are so ignorant that nothing else but this would matter to us? Or does he think that this makes him look strong?
If this is their thinking, they are sorely mistaken. We have a whole book of things to make our decision on the future of Mr. Obama. If the killing of Bin Laden was a single outstanding use, or even a very limited use, of our ability to use drones and keep our men and women safe, that would be a good thing. The excess to which the drones are being used is very troublesome. The fact that Mr. Obama wants to, and has involved us in even more warfare, is another mark against choosing him for a repeat of what he has already done. The negligence in which he has treated the safety and security of our country, the contempt that he has for the beliefs and wishes of the people that he was elected to serve, and the continuing enslavement of the American people by policies that dramatically increase their cost of living are also heavy weights against him.
I would like some of his supporters to point to anything that he has really done that is promoting life in some form or another. Everything that I have seen is promoting death. This to me, is simply unacceptable. I cannot do anything other than stand against such a person.
We are told not to judge others, that it is up to God to judge, and I cannot tell what Mr. Obama believes or what his followers believe. But contrary to what a lot of people who are not followers of Christ, believe, we are not told to act as if the actions of a person have no difference in how we consider them. The very opposite is true, we must consider their actions, because if we do not, by our very silence we are condoning those same actions. We are instructed this way:
“Therefore be followers of God, as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Therefore do not be partakers with them. Ephesians 5:1-7
So for all those who would try to deceive us with empty words, it is ignorance on your part to think that we will not take into consideration the actions of the man who was elected to lead our country out of the ugliness that we were in. Do not think that we will accept the empty words that you preached in Mr. Obama’s first election. People were so needy then, and wanting the “hope and change” that was promised, that they forgot that there was a man behind the words. Since that time, we have learned what kind of man that Mr. Obama is.
No longer will we be swayed by promises and empty words. The promises were just as empty as the words and the only change we have gotten is for the worse. Please do not treat us as if we were ignorant and gullible.
So for those that are still undecided on whether to vote for Mr. Obama or not in the coming election, let me say this, I will be voting for life and this administration promotes death! I will be voting for change that allows me to practice my faith and doesn’t try to decide what my faith should be. I will be voting for hope and the promise of a country that believes in it’s people and does not think that we should bow down to every other religion and faith in order to gain respect. We gain respect for standing for our principles. The only thing that giving up your principles gets you, is contempt from those that you bow down to.
- Obama Tell Us “What really happened to Bin Laden” (grumpyelder.com)
- Obama’s Back-up Plan had the Bin Laden mission failed (grumpyelder.com)