The term “separation of church and state” is being thrown around more every day, but it seems that its origin and meaning still escapes many Americans, even those who should know better. Even among Christian conservatives, there are now some who constantly check themselves at the door of separation of church and state before making private or public decisions or statements, readily accepting the popular understanding of the phrase.
The problematic reality of the situation is that they are being misled by those whose intentions are dishonest and far from the promotion of free speech and religion. Most political conversations now initiated, concerning the separation of church and state, claim that the separation they speak of is based upon the U.S. Constitution. In reality, this phrase is found nowhere in the Constitution; neither is their argument. The anti-freedom argument of separation of church and state contends that no reference, audible or visible, to any biblical or Christian tenet should be allowed in any federal or state facility (or in any decision made therein.)
Their unfounded claim is made in citation to the First Amendment to the Constitution, effective December 15, 1791. Amendment I states that “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.”
Obviously, the exact phrase that is so popular among this crowd is not present in this amendment. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” actually originated from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut on January 1, 1802. This religious group, like many today, had learned just enough about the governmental terminology that had been established concerning the church and the state to entertain the possibility that the government meant to turn completely away from the interests and influences of Christianity and Bible teaching. That was their fear. The purpose of Jefferson’s letter was to remove their fears and to assure them that this “wall” was being erected to protect their religious freedom, in that it was meant to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business. The respect or display of Judeo-Christian faith is not the sort of “establishment” being addressed in the First Amendment. This faith had already been established long before the writing of the Constitution.
It’s easier to put the true intent of the nation’s founders into perspective when we consider their plight in the earlier American colonies and, for some of them and many of their ancestors, in the mother country of England. There, under the British monarchy, the Church of England and the government were one in the same. Both entities infiltrated the other, causing citizens’ lives, well-being, and freedoms to suffer. This “establishment” of a state religion is what the founders wished to avoid in the independent separation of their young nation of the United States from British control. Their intention was never to remove the free expression or practice of religion from public or private American life. Quite the contrary was true.
In fact, 52 of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established colonial orthodox churches. As the very first Supreme Court justice, John Jay, in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797, said that “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” In 1798, John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Based upon historical record, these views were also shared by others, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Dr. Benjamin Rush. Although the nation was not officially founded to be a Christian nation, in that it was not penned into founding documents that “the United States of America is to be solely representative and influenced by Christianity,” by the very nature of the Founders’ faith and actions, it should be clearly understood that America was, from the beginning, a Christian nation. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times and clearly states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” By any contextual interpretation, it can only be concluded that the “Creator” being spoken of in this document is the God of the Holy Bible.
Other evidence of the country’s traditional Christian heritage can be clearly observed in the nation’s Capital and in other public institutions elsewhere. The words “In God We Trust” are emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court building, built in the 1930’s, contains a carved monument above its East entrance featuring Moses holding stone tablets representing the Ten Commandments. God is mentioned, including Bible verses, in the stone architecture of various Federal buildings and monuments in Washington, D.C. The liberty bell also contains an engraved Bible verse. In every presidential swearing-in ceremony, prayers have been offered, and every U.S. president has uttered the words “So help me God” as they were sworn in on the Bible. Every president who has given an inaugural address has invoked the name of God in their speech. Other courtroom oaths have also always invoked God, and chaplains have always been included on the public payroll. God is mentioned in the original Constitution of all 50 states. Including official festivities under every administration at the White House, our nation has also always celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior’s birth.
CONTINUED: http://www.westernjournalism.com/separation-of-church-and-state-then-and-now/
Showing posts with label John Adams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Adams. Show all posts
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
One of my favorite Founders, Presidents--John Adams
"Be not intimidated...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
Quote by: John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Date: A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765
Quote by: John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
Date: A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765
Monday, October 31, 2011
American Minute with Bill Federer: John Adams
John Adams is one of my favorite and under appreciated, Founding Fathers! For more information read: John Adams by David McCullough. ~Lynn
October 30, 2011
John Adams was born OCTOBER 30, 1735.
A Harvard graduate, he was admitted to the bar and married Abigail Smith in 1764.
In the Continental Congress, John Adams recommended Thomas Jefferson pen the Declaration and George Washington be Commander-in-Chief.
John Adams authored Massachusetts' 1780 Constitution and was U.S. Minister to France, signing the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War.
While U.S. Minister to Britain, John Adams helped ratify the Constitution by writing a three volume work: Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States.
John Adams was the first Vice-President, serving under George Washington, and in 1796 was elected the 2nd U.S. President.
He established the Library of Congress and the Department of Navy.
His son, John Quincy, became 6th President.
In 1819, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?...
And without virtue, there can be no political liberty."
John Adams continued: "Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?...
I believe no effort in favour of virtue is lost."
On June 2, 1778, while in Paris, John Adams made the entry in his diary: "In vain are schools, academies, and universities instituted, if loose principles and licentious habits are impressed upon children in their earliest years....
The vices and examples of the parents cannot be concealed from the children.
How is it possible that children can have any just sense of the sacred obligations of morality or religion if, from their earliest infancy, they learn their mothers live in habitual infidelity to their fathers,and their fathers in as constant infidelity to their mothers?"
In 1774, in his commentary titled, Novanglus: A History of the Dispute with America, from its Origin, in 1754, to the Present Time, John Adams wrote: "It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted.
For example, if exorbitant ambition and venality are predominant, ought they not to warn their hearers against those vices?
If public spirit is much wanted, should they not inculcate this great virtue?
If the rights and duties of Christian magistrates and subjects are disputed, should they not explain them, show their nature, ends, limitations, and restrictions, how much soever it may move the gall of Massachusetts."
On June 21, 1776, John Adams wrote: "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.
The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure, than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."
In February of 1765, John Adams wrote in his notes on A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law: "I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."
To support the American Minute: http://www.americanminute.com/donate.php
October 30, 2011
John Adams was born OCTOBER 30, 1735.
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." --John Adams
A Harvard graduate, he was admitted to the bar and married Abigail Smith in 1764.
In the Continental Congress, John Adams recommended Thomas Jefferson pen the Declaration and George Washington be Commander-in-Chief.
John Adams authored Massachusetts' 1780 Constitution and was U.S. Minister to France, signing the Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War.
While U.S. Minister to Britain, John Adams helped ratify the Constitution by writing a three volume work: Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States.
John Adams was the first Vice-President, serving under George Washington, and in 1796 was elected the 2nd U.S. President.
He established the Library of Congress and the Department of Navy.
His son, John Quincy, became 6th President.
In 1819, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?...
And without virtue, there can be no political liberty."
John Adams continued: "Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?...
I believe no effort in favour of virtue is lost."
On June 2, 1778, while in Paris, John Adams made the entry in his diary: "In vain are schools, academies, and universities instituted, if loose principles and licentious habits are impressed upon children in their earliest years....
The vices and examples of the parents cannot be concealed from the children.
How is it possible that children can have any just sense of the sacred obligations of morality or religion if, from their earliest infancy, they learn their mothers live in habitual infidelity to their fathers,and their fathers in as constant infidelity to their mothers?"
In 1774, in his commentary titled, Novanglus: A History of the Dispute with America, from its Origin, in 1754, to the Present Time, John Adams wrote: "It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times, to preach against such sins as are most prevalent, and recommend such virtues as are most wanted.
For example, if exorbitant ambition and venality are predominant, ought they not to warn their hearers against those vices?
If public spirit is much wanted, should they not inculcate this great virtue?
If the rights and duties of Christian magistrates and subjects are disputed, should they not explain them, show their nature, ends, limitations, and restrictions, how much soever it may move the gall of Massachusetts."
On June 21, 1776, John Adams wrote: "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.
The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure, than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."
In February of 1765, John Adams wrote in his notes on A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law: "I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."
To support the American Minute: http://www.americanminute.com/donate.php
Friday, July 29, 2011
The Tea Party – It’s Here to Stay
by Diane Rufino, July 29, 2011
It is said that the Tea Party movement started with a rant by Rick Santelli, of CNBC, on the trading floor of CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) Group in Chicago on Feb. 19, 2009 but the real truth is that it started even before that.
Of course we all know that the Tea Party movement started many years ago, on December 16, 1773, with a simple act of civil disobedience in rejection of a small tax on tea – “a 3 pence.” On that evening, approximately 100 “radicals” from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, dressed up as Mohawk Indians, boarded three East India Company ships, and dumped 342 chests of tea into the Boston Harbor. The Boston Tea Party would have as a direct consequence (albeit in 1775) the firing of the first shots of the Revolutionary War…. and soon, our independence from a tyrannical ruler.
Just as John Adams commented that the American (tax) revolution was in the hearts of the colonists even before a drop of blood was spilled at Lexington – “The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution” – our current (conservative, tax/spend) revolution has been in the hearts and minds of ordinary hardworking folks even before Barack Obama took office.
Conservative voters were already questioning why banks were being bailed out (Bush signed a $700 billion plan to bail out banks), why were billions of their tax money being spent on government programs, and why were they willingly saddling their children with government debt.
Then when Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, he quickly appointed people (czars) like Larry Summer and Tim Geithner to his team who were all seen as people who were part of the problem. Stephanie Jasky, a paralegal from Detroit, Michigan, chatted: “We were hemorrhaging money. I was looking for answers – I wanted to know what had happened. The more I looked the more it became clear to me that the problem was our government, that the government had become the criminal.” Jasky was one of those citizens who took up the idea of sending her elected officials in the US Congress tea bags as a form of protest. She loved the idea. She bought a box of tea bags and sent one to every member of Congress. She said: “All these bailouts and stimulus packages, that was taking our money and spending it without our permission. Taxation without representation. We thought, didn’t that happen to us in the Revolutionary wars? Hello! Anyone remember King George?”
On February 15, 2009, Keli Carender, a blogger known as “Liberty Belle,” spread the word about a grass-roots protest she was organizing in Seattle to express outrage over the passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus/porkulus/Generational Act of 2009. She was enraged that such a bill passed Congress and especially without much discussion or opposition by Republicans. It was the first time she did any kind of political organizing. She was simply a conservative mother who blogged who never thought she would jump into any political arena. Amazingly, she turned around the event in a few days all on her own by reaching out on the Internet, to her local talk station, and to anyone who would listen.
Also in February, local radio host Leland Conway in Kentucky called on his listeners to send liberal NY Senator Chuck Schumer pork rinds. In response, a mountain of 1,500 bags poured into the station on February 16 and was shipped to Schumer. Conway idea was motivated by Schumer’s arrogant statement that only the “chattering classes” cared about the “teeny, tiny” pork amendments in the Generational Theft Act.
On February 18, 500 fed-up taxpayers showed up in Mesa, AZ to oppose President Obama’s plans to expand the government’s mortgage entitlement program. (Think about what happened with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac).
On February 19, ordinary citizen Amanda Grosserode e-mailed that she was organizing a tax revolt protest in Overland Park, KS the following weekend. More than 400 people showed up in freezing weather to protest Rep. Dennis Moore’s vote for the stimulus bill. And also on that same day, CNBC’s Rick Santelli issued his now-famous rant and plans for a Chicago “Tea Party,” prompted by Obama’s mortgage entitlement expansion plans. He accused the Obama administration of “promoting bad behavior” and subsidizing “losers’ mortgages.”
Santelli gave a voice and even a passion to what the Tea Party movement would become…. a frustration with government and its policies of entitlement and fiscal irresponsibility. Here are the words of that rant:
RICK SANTELLI: The government is promoting bad behavior….. You know, the new administration’s big on computers and technology… How about this, President and new administration? Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages; or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water? This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? Raise your hand.
(Whistling, Cheering.People booing Obama)
SANTELLI: President Obama, are you listening?
RANDOM TRADER: How ’bout we all stop paying our mortgage?
SANTELLI: You know, Cuba used to have mansions and a relatively decent economy. They moved from the individual to the collective. Now, they’re driving ’54 Chevys, which is probably the last great car to come out of Detroit.
KERNEN: Hey Rick, how about the notion that you can go down to 2% on the mortgage…
SANTELLI: You could go down to -2%. And they can’t afford the house.
JOE KERNEN: So why are they in the house? Why are we trying to keep them in the house?
SANTELLI: We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start organizing.
(Whistling, cheering)
WILBUR ROSS: Rick, I congratulate you on your new incarnation as a revolutionary leader.
SANTELLI: Somebody needs one. I’ll tell you what, if you read our Founding Fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson,… What we’re doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves.
Perhaps Santelli was referring to a warning by James Madison: “The people of the U.S. owe their Independence and their liberty to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprised in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom, in watching against every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings.” For too long, Americans have not been watching.
Within 10 days of Santelli’s rant, on February 27, the first Tea Party rally was held in Washington, Chicago and other cities across the US. The Tea Party movement and Tea Party phenomenon had been born.
Lest we forget what the Tea Party stands for and who itself makes up this informal group of grassroots “radicals,” consider how Mark Alexander summed it up in 2010: ” So, just what is the Tea Party? Let me first answer that question by describing who it is.
We are American Patriots, defenders of First Principles and Essential Liberty.
We are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and public servants standing in harm’s way at home and around the world, who are loyal, first and foremost, to our revered oath to “support and defend” our Constitution.
We are grassroots leaders and local, state and national officeholders who, likewise, honor our sacred oath.
We are mothers, fathers and other family members nurturing the next generation of young Patriots. We are farmers, craftsmen, tradesmen and industrial producers. We are small business owners, service providers and professionals in medicine and law. We are employees and employers. We are in ministry at home and missionaries abroad. We are students and professors at colleges and universities, often standing alone for what is good and right.
We are consumers and taxpayers. We are voters.
We are Patriot sons and daughters from all walks of life, heirs to the blessings of Liberty bequeathed to us at great personal cost by our Patriot forebears, confirmed in the opinion that it is our duty to God and Country to extend that blessing to our posterity, and avowed upon our sacred honor to that end. We are vigilant, strong, prepared and faithful.
We are not defined by race, creed, ethnicity, religion, wealth, education or political affiliation, but by our devotion to our Creator, and the liberty He has entrusted to us, one and all.
Second, in answer to the question, the Tea Party is not a political party, per se, organized around a national platform, rather a well-defined and uniform slate of principles on which they center their advocacy and support for political candidates.
Those principles include, first and foremost, advocating for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense, and traditional American values.”
And the Tea Party is definitely here to stay.
References:
Michele Malkin, “Tax Day Tea Party Cheat Sheet: How it All Started, ” April 15, 2009. Referenced at: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/a-tax-day-tea-party-cheat-sheet-how-it-all-started/
Ed Pilkington, “How the Tea Party Began,” Oct. 5, 2010. Referenced at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/05/us-midterm-elections-2010-tea-party-movement
Santelli’s Rant - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k&feature=player_embedded
Mark Alexander, “The Tea Party Movement, ” The Patriot Post, June 24, 2010. Referenced at: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/06/24/the-tea-party-movement/
READ MORE FROM DIANE AT: "Forloveofgodandcountry's Blog"
http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
It is said that the Tea Party movement started with a rant by Rick Santelli, of CNBC, on the trading floor of CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) Group in Chicago on Feb. 19, 2009 but the real truth is that it started even before that.
Of course we all know that the Tea Party movement started many years ago, on December 16, 1773, with a simple act of civil disobedience in rejection of a small tax on tea – “a 3 pence.” On that evening, approximately 100 “radicals” from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, dressed up as Mohawk Indians, boarded three East India Company ships, and dumped 342 chests of tea into the Boston Harbor. The Boston Tea Party would have as a direct consequence (albeit in 1775) the firing of the first shots of the Revolutionary War…. and soon, our independence from a tyrannical ruler.
Just as John Adams commented that the American (tax) revolution was in the hearts of the colonists even before a drop of blood was spilled at Lexington – “The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution” – our current (conservative, tax/spend) revolution has been in the hearts and minds of ordinary hardworking folks even before Barack Obama took office.
Conservative voters were already questioning why banks were being bailed out (Bush signed a $700 billion plan to bail out banks), why were billions of their tax money being spent on government programs, and why were they willingly saddling their children with government debt.
Then when Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, he quickly appointed people (czars) like Larry Summer and Tim Geithner to his team who were all seen as people who were part of the problem. Stephanie Jasky, a paralegal from Detroit, Michigan, chatted: “We were hemorrhaging money. I was looking for answers – I wanted to know what had happened. The more I looked the more it became clear to me that the problem was our government, that the government had become the criminal.” Jasky was one of those citizens who took up the idea of sending her elected officials in the US Congress tea bags as a form of protest. She loved the idea. She bought a box of tea bags and sent one to every member of Congress. She said: “All these bailouts and stimulus packages, that was taking our money and spending it without our permission. Taxation without representation. We thought, didn’t that happen to us in the Revolutionary wars? Hello! Anyone remember King George?”
On February 15, 2009, Keli Carender, a blogger known as “Liberty Belle,” spread the word about a grass-roots protest she was organizing in Seattle to express outrage over the passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus/porkulus/Generational Act of 2009. She was enraged that such a bill passed Congress and especially without much discussion or opposition by Republicans. It was the first time she did any kind of political organizing. She was simply a conservative mother who blogged who never thought she would jump into any political arena. Amazingly, she turned around the event in a few days all on her own by reaching out on the Internet, to her local talk station, and to anyone who would listen.
Also in February, local radio host Leland Conway in Kentucky called on his listeners to send liberal NY Senator Chuck Schumer pork rinds. In response, a mountain of 1,500 bags poured into the station on February 16 and was shipped to Schumer. Conway idea was motivated by Schumer’s arrogant statement that only the “chattering classes” cared about the “teeny, tiny” pork amendments in the Generational Theft Act.
On February 18, 500 fed-up taxpayers showed up in Mesa, AZ to oppose President Obama’s plans to expand the government’s mortgage entitlement program. (Think about what happened with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac).
On February 19, ordinary citizen Amanda Grosserode e-mailed that she was organizing a tax revolt protest in Overland Park, KS the following weekend. More than 400 people showed up in freezing weather to protest Rep. Dennis Moore’s vote for the stimulus bill. And also on that same day, CNBC’s Rick Santelli issued his now-famous rant and plans for a Chicago “Tea Party,” prompted by Obama’s mortgage entitlement expansion plans. He accused the Obama administration of “promoting bad behavior” and subsidizing “losers’ mortgages.”
Santelli gave a voice and even a passion to what the Tea Party movement would become…. a frustration with government and its policies of entitlement and fiscal irresponsibility. Here are the words of that rant:
RICK SANTELLI: The government is promoting bad behavior….. You know, the new administration’s big on computers and technology… How about this, President and new administration? Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages; or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water? This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? Raise your hand.
(Whistling, Cheering.People booing Obama)
SANTELLI: President Obama, are you listening?
RANDOM TRADER: How ’bout we all stop paying our mortgage?
SANTELLI: You know, Cuba used to have mansions and a relatively decent economy. They moved from the individual to the collective. Now, they’re driving ’54 Chevys, which is probably the last great car to come out of Detroit.
KERNEN: Hey Rick, how about the notion that you can go down to 2% on the mortgage…
SANTELLI: You could go down to -2%. And they can’t afford the house.
JOE KERNEN: So why are they in the house? Why are we trying to keep them in the house?
SANTELLI: We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start organizing.
(Whistling, cheering)
WILBUR ROSS: Rick, I congratulate you on your new incarnation as a revolutionary leader.
SANTELLI: Somebody needs one. I’ll tell you what, if you read our Founding Fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson,… What we’re doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves.
Perhaps Santelli was referring to a warning by James Madison: “The people of the U.S. owe their Independence and their liberty to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprised in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom, in watching against every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings.” For too long, Americans have not been watching.
Within 10 days of Santelli’s rant, on February 27, the first Tea Party rally was held in Washington, Chicago and other cities across the US. The Tea Party movement and Tea Party phenomenon had been born.
Lest we forget what the Tea Party stands for and who itself makes up this informal group of grassroots “radicals,” consider how Mark Alexander summed it up in 2010: ” So, just what is the Tea Party? Let me first answer that question by describing who it is.
We are American Patriots, defenders of First Principles and Essential Liberty.
We are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen and public servants standing in harm’s way at home and around the world, who are loyal, first and foremost, to our revered oath to “support and defend” our Constitution.
We are grassroots leaders and local, state and national officeholders who, likewise, honor our sacred oath.
We are mothers, fathers and other family members nurturing the next generation of young Patriots. We are farmers, craftsmen, tradesmen and industrial producers. We are small business owners, service providers and professionals in medicine and law. We are employees and employers. We are in ministry at home and missionaries abroad. We are students and professors at colleges and universities, often standing alone for what is good and right.
We are consumers and taxpayers. We are voters.
We are Patriot sons and daughters from all walks of life, heirs to the blessings of Liberty bequeathed to us at great personal cost by our Patriot forebears, confirmed in the opinion that it is our duty to God and Country to extend that blessing to our posterity, and avowed upon our sacred honor to that end. We are vigilant, strong, prepared and faithful.
We are not defined by race, creed, ethnicity, religion, wealth, education or political affiliation, but by our devotion to our Creator, and the liberty He has entrusted to us, one and all.
Second, in answer to the question, the Tea Party is not a political party, per se, organized around a national platform, rather a well-defined and uniform slate of principles on which they center their advocacy and support for political candidates.
Those principles include, first and foremost, advocating for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense, and traditional American values.”
And the Tea Party is definitely here to stay.
References:
Michele Malkin, “Tax Day Tea Party Cheat Sheet: How it All Started, ” April 15, 2009. Referenced at: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/a-tax-day-tea-party-cheat-sheet-how-it-all-started/
Ed Pilkington, “How the Tea Party Began,” Oct. 5, 2010. Referenced at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/05/us-midterm-elections-2010-tea-party-movement
Santelli’s Rant - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k&feature=player_embedded
Mark Alexander, “The Tea Party Movement, ” The Patriot Post, June 24, 2010. Referenced at: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/06/24/the-tea-party-movement/
READ MORE FROM DIANE AT: "Forloveofgodandcountry's Blog"
http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
WALTER WILLIAMS: Gross Media Ignorance About the Founders
July 5, 2011
Gross Media Ignorance About the Founders
By Walter Williams
There's little that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution.
If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect for the founding values of our nation.
Stengel says: "The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms -- freedom of speech, assembly, religion -- but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College." (I GET SO MAD WHEN I HEAR LIBERALS SPOUT THIS LIE!!!--Lynn)
My column last week addressed the compromise whereby each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.
Had slaves been counted as whole people, slaveholding states would have had much greater political power. I agree the framers were not gods and were not infallible, but they had far greater wisdom and principle than today's politicians.
The framers held democracy and majority rule in deep contempt. As a matter of fact, the term democracy appears in none of our founding documents. James Madison argued that "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Stengel's majoritarian vision sees it as anti-democratic that South Dakota and California both have two senators, but the framers wanted to reduce the chances that highly populated states would run roughshod over thinly populated states. They established the Electoral College to serve the same purpose in determining the presidency.
The framers recognized that most human abuses were the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil."
Because of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the language used throughout our Constitution.
The Bill of Rights says Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe, shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections.
I've always argued that if we depart this world and see anything resembling the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we'll know we're in hell. A bill of rights in heaven would be an affront to God.
Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, two-thirds vote to override a veto and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.
Stengel says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so." That statement is beyond ignorance. The 10th Amendment reads:
"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."
Stengel apparently has not read The Federalist No. 45, in which James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Stengel's article is five pages online, and I've only commented on the first. There's also little in the remaining pages that reflects understanding and respect for our nation's most important document.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/05/gross_media_ignorance_about_the_founders_110460.html
at July 06, 2011 - 04:43:19 PM PDT
Gross Media Ignorance About the Founders
By Walter Williams
There's little that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution.
If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect for the founding values of our nation.
Stengel says: "The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms -- freedom of speech, assembly, religion -- but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College." (I GET SO MAD WHEN I HEAR LIBERALS SPOUT THIS LIE!!!--Lynn)
My column last week addressed the compromise whereby each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.
Had slaves been counted as whole people, slaveholding states would have had much greater political power. I agree the framers were not gods and were not infallible, but they had far greater wisdom and principle than today's politicians.
The framers held democracy and majority rule in deep contempt. As a matter of fact, the term democracy appears in none of our founding documents. James Madison argued that "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Stengel's majoritarian vision sees it as anti-democratic that South Dakota and California both have two senators, but the framers wanted to reduce the chances that highly populated states would run roughshod over thinly populated states. They established the Electoral College to serve the same purpose in determining the presidency.
The framers recognized that most human abuses were the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil."
Because of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the language used throughout our Constitution.
The Bill of Rights says Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe, shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections.
I've always argued that if we depart this world and see anything resembling the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we'll know we're in hell. A bill of rights in heaven would be an affront to God.
Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, two-thirds vote to override a veto and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.
Stengel says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so." That statement is beyond ignorance. The 10th Amendment reads:
"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."
Stengel apparently has not read The Federalist No. 45, in which James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Stengel's article is five pages online, and I've only commented on the first. There's also little in the remaining pages that reflects understanding and respect for our nation's most important document.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/05/gross_media_ignorance_about_the_founders_110460.html
at July 06, 2011 - 04:43:19 PM PDT
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Friday Five: Rep. Randy Forbes on the National Day of Prayer Decision
by Kim Trobee, editor
A federal judge ruled this week that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.
As founder and co-chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., said the decision deprives us of “the very principles we need to secure our freedom.”
1. A federal court in Wisconsin has ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. Tell us your thoughts on that decision.
Throughout our nation’s history, prayer and religion have been deeply woven into the foundation of our great democracy. In fact, John Adams correctly noted that while statesmen could plan and speculate about liberty, it was only religion and morality that could establish the principles to secure freedom. The federal judge’s decision to call the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional represents a movement we are seeing across the country of a small minority who want to exclude faith, religion and morality from the marketplace of ideas. In so doing, they may be depriving us of the very principles we need to secure our freedom. Not only does this decision undermine the basic premise of our Declaration of Independence, but it takes an opposite viewpoint of so many great leaders throughout our nation's history. It also seeks to weaken the very foundation upon which our nation was built.
2. The ruling may go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Given the current makeup of the court, do you anticipate a favorable ruling at that level?
While we cannot speculate how the Supreme Court would rule on this case, one thing this particular decision should make clear is how dangerous it is to appoint activist judges. This federal judge has essentially said that the Declaration of Independence – a document that very clearly states that our rights were given by a Creator – is unconstitutional. Is there any question this judge would have declared the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional if it were written today, since it proclaims all our rights come from the Creator? It is regrettable that we would have a federal judge essentially rule against the very premise of the nation's foundational document of freedom. The decision should be a wake-up call to Americans across the country.
3. In his first year in office President Obama signed the proclamation on the day of the event with no ceremony. What message does that send to the nation about religious liberty?
This White House has been slow to take steps to acknowledge this important part of our nation’s history. Unfortunately, this places us on a slippery slope where at the bottom, there is no prayer, there is no acknowledgment of our Creator, and there is no recognition of our nation’s spiritual heritage and its connection to American strength. It is important that we continue to affirm America’s spiritual heritage and reaffirm the ability of all Americans to pray for blessings on their lives and on our nation according to the dictates of their conscience.
4. The National Day of Prayer has been recognized dating back to the 1700s with the Continental Congress. Is there still a place for such a celebration today, or is the court correct that its day has passed?
There is absolutely still a place for the celebration of prayer in America. There is a small segment of people in the country today who want to exclude this major portion of our history of faith, religion and morality that has made America great. But there are millions of Americans who are going to continue to take a strong stand on the issue of preserving America’s religious heritage.
Over the past couple of years, we have seen efforts to cover up references to God on the Washington Monument, remove the mention of God from veterans’ flag-folding ceremonies, take God off our Capitol flag certificates, and erase “In God We Trust” from the Capitol Visitor Center. In every one of these cases, the bipartisan Congressional Prayer Caucus, which I founded and co-chair, has worked to preserve this important part of our history – and it has been successful. I am confident that we can be successful on this issue of protecting the National Day of Prayer in America as well.
5. The Freedom From Religion Foundation and organizations like it have been filing lawsuits like these for years. What should people of faith do to protect their religious liberty?
We have had a lot of victories over the past few years on matters of preserving faith, religion and morality in America. These successes serve as proof that because we believe, we stand, and because we stand, we can make a difference. But we still have work to do. We owe it to those who have gone before us and to our future generations to provide a complete representation of our nation’s heritage. In the past, many people of faith have been content to settle for a defensive strategy, waiting for these anti-God groups to pick their forums and their judges so that they could concentrate their resources to slowly unravel the tapestry of faith that has sustained America. I believe we need a different strategy. I believe we need to get everybody in the fight and reclaim a seat for faith in the marketplace of ideas. That is why we are attempting to establish prayer caucuses in every state legislature in America. Mississippi took that step this week, Virginia will soon follow and other states are on the way.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Learn more about the Congressional Prayer Caucus. http://forbes.house.gov/PrayerCaucus/
Learn more about the National Day of Prayer. http://nationaldayofprayer.org/
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family Action is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000012479.cfm?utm_source=feedburner#
A federal judge ruled this week that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.
As founder and co-chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., said the decision deprives us of “the very principles we need to secure our freedom.”
1. A federal court in Wisconsin has ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. Tell us your thoughts on that decision.
Throughout our nation’s history, prayer and religion have been deeply woven into the foundation of our great democracy. In fact, John Adams correctly noted that while statesmen could plan and speculate about liberty, it was only religion and morality that could establish the principles to secure freedom. The federal judge’s decision to call the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional represents a movement we are seeing across the country of a small minority who want to exclude faith, religion and morality from the marketplace of ideas. In so doing, they may be depriving us of the very principles we need to secure our freedom. Not only does this decision undermine the basic premise of our Declaration of Independence, but it takes an opposite viewpoint of so many great leaders throughout our nation's history. It also seeks to weaken the very foundation upon which our nation was built.
2. The ruling may go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Given the current makeup of the court, do you anticipate a favorable ruling at that level?
While we cannot speculate how the Supreme Court would rule on this case, one thing this particular decision should make clear is how dangerous it is to appoint activist judges. This federal judge has essentially said that the Declaration of Independence – a document that very clearly states that our rights were given by a Creator – is unconstitutional. Is there any question this judge would have declared the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional if it were written today, since it proclaims all our rights come from the Creator? It is regrettable that we would have a federal judge essentially rule against the very premise of the nation's foundational document of freedom. The decision should be a wake-up call to Americans across the country.
3. In his first year in office President Obama signed the proclamation on the day of the event with no ceremony. What message does that send to the nation about religious liberty?
This White House has been slow to take steps to acknowledge this important part of our nation’s history. Unfortunately, this places us on a slippery slope where at the bottom, there is no prayer, there is no acknowledgment of our Creator, and there is no recognition of our nation’s spiritual heritage and its connection to American strength. It is important that we continue to affirm America’s spiritual heritage and reaffirm the ability of all Americans to pray for blessings on their lives and on our nation according to the dictates of their conscience.
4. The National Day of Prayer has been recognized dating back to the 1700s with the Continental Congress. Is there still a place for such a celebration today, or is the court correct that its day has passed?
There is absolutely still a place for the celebration of prayer in America. There is a small segment of people in the country today who want to exclude this major portion of our history of faith, religion and morality that has made America great. But there are millions of Americans who are going to continue to take a strong stand on the issue of preserving America’s religious heritage.
Over the past couple of years, we have seen efforts to cover up references to God on the Washington Monument, remove the mention of God from veterans’ flag-folding ceremonies, take God off our Capitol flag certificates, and erase “In God We Trust” from the Capitol Visitor Center. In every one of these cases, the bipartisan Congressional Prayer Caucus, which I founded and co-chair, has worked to preserve this important part of our history – and it has been successful. I am confident that we can be successful on this issue of protecting the National Day of Prayer in America as well.
5. The Freedom From Religion Foundation and organizations like it have been filing lawsuits like these for years. What should people of faith do to protect their religious liberty?
We have had a lot of victories over the past few years on matters of preserving faith, religion and morality in America. These successes serve as proof that because we believe, we stand, and because we stand, we can make a difference. But we still have work to do. We owe it to those who have gone before us and to our future generations to provide a complete representation of our nation’s heritage. In the past, many people of faith have been content to settle for a defensive strategy, waiting for these anti-God groups to pick their forums and their judges so that they could concentrate their resources to slowly unravel the tapestry of faith that has sustained America. I believe we need a different strategy. I believe we need to get everybody in the fight and reclaim a seat for faith in the marketplace of ideas. That is why we are attempting to establish prayer caucuses in every state legislature in America. Mississippi took that step this week, Virginia will soon follow and other states are on the way.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Learn more about the Congressional Prayer Caucus. http://forbes.house.gov/PrayerCaucus/
Learn more about the National Day of Prayer. http://nationaldayofprayer.org/
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family Action is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000012479.cfm?utm_source=feedburner#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
