Judeo-Christian Values are in U.S. Constitution


Constitution for moral & religious people -John Adams

John R. Houk

© March 14, 2015

 

Below is a comment dialogue between myself and Sifu Mode from the SlantRight 2.0 post “Religion and the Constitution”. My 3/14/15 response is the meat of this post. I am guessing Sifu is one who intentionally or unintentionally supports the concept of a Living Constitution. I am definitely one who stands with the Original Intent Constitution.

 

##

Sifu Mode

Mar 5, 2015

 

Anyone who believes Constitutional rights don’t apply to any person or class is irrational and wrong.

##

John Houk

Mar 9, 2015

 

Anyone who believes the Original Intent of the Constitution changes with the whims of immoral Leftists is wrong and manipulative.

##

Sifu Mode

Mar 9, 2015

 

Original intent was that everyone is included regardless of religious beliefs so I have not advocated for changing it, you are.

##

John Houk

3/13/15 12:00 PM

 

Actually Sifu Original Intent was freedom to worship as you please (or not), but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective. Read the beginning and ending of Constitution and the entire Declaration of Independence factoring in each State’s Constitution which were never Federally abrogated by the U.S. Constitution.

##

Sifu Mode

3/13/15 12:24 PM

 

+John Houk 
but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective

This sentence does not make sense in context of the meaning of “rule of law”.

Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law. All are equally subject to the same treatment by law.

Now to say that laws were often based on the values commonly taught by the Christian religion is pretty fair. To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.

Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.

###

John Response to Sifu 3/13/15

3/14/15

 

Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law.

 

Sifu you are sorely mistaken! The “Rule of Law” means the law rules the land as opposed to the Rule of Man which implies a man or an oligarchy of men rule the land. Men rule by a pen and a phone (edict) are not subject to laws. When law is the rule no man is above the law. In Western Culture laws are derived from a heritage. The West’s heritage is Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian influences. This heritage is the reason Western nations that don’t have a Third World element thus have evolved a Representative Democratic form of government in laws have replaced men as the ruler.

 

To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.

 

Even the Democratic-Socialist Representative governments of Europe demonstrate the laws have an exclusivity to Judeo-Christianity – although that exclusivity is being eroded by culture destroying Multiculturalism. In America Multiculturalism only has a mere toe-hold because Left Wing Democrats and the Mainstream Media (MSM) have been ramming the concept down American throats.

 

As long as constitutional interpretation is via Original Intent rather than the make it up as you go along Living Constitution (Rule of Man), the Judeo-Christianity inherent in American culture and intended by America’s Founding Fathers will be preserved which has made America great.

 

Once Multiculturalism gains more than a toe-hold in America then the erosion of the Christian heritage that has made America exceptional so that the world’s poor dream of coming to America for a better life. The secularist value system promoted primarily by America’s Left is eroding American culture by a determined effort to dilute our Judeo-Christian influence to the point of actually belittling Christianity and calling Bible believing Christians bigots. Once Biblical values are replaced with the acceptance of concepts such as homosexual acceptance and allowing counter-American culture concepts such as despotic Sharia Law that is derived from a specifically antisemitic and antichrist religion known as Islam, then America’s values derived from Judeo-Christianity will cease to exist. America will cease to be exception followed by America ceasing to be great.

 

Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.

 

Sifu either the Constitution is wholly a part of “those laws” or it is a piece of paper that exists to provide citizens an illusion of the existence of the Rule of Law meaning the Rule of Man is the reality and America is despotic and America has never been exceptional and thus America’s greatness is an illusion. That doesn’t sound like the same America I have studied nor is it the America I have grown up in from birth to the present (58 years). AND my elementary and secondary school learning occurred prior to the American Left making their efforts to revise history in text books and in class curriculum.

 

Now the Constitution did constitute the creation of a Federal government with three Branches designed in such a way that one Branch does not dominate the other. To prevent Branch domination the Constitutional Rule of Law provides for Checks and Balances. Once those Checks and Balances are breached by any Branch then despotism will ensue that will replace the Rule of Law with an oligarchic Rule of Man.

 

Part of those Checks and Balances is the influence of Judeo-Christianity and the Constitution maintaining that laws not mandated to the Federal government is under the sovereignty of the several State governments.

 

An essay by David W. New provides an astute observation the God of Christianity and the U.S. Constitution in terms of Original Intent, State Constitutions and the Federal government:

 

Where is “God” in the Preamble to the Constitution?

 

Secularists are very quick to point out that the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be ‘under God’ in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point. The word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. However, it is doubtful that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word “God” will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word “God” appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is “Almighty God.” This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words “Almighty God” appear in the state religion clauses. In the case of the U.S. Constitution however, no divine reference appears in either the Preamble or in the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Why is this true?

 

The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word “God” in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: “Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . . and Georgia.” When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People. Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their ‘spin’ on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

 

Where is “God” in the First Amendment?

 

The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here however the textual reason is due to the subject matter of the First Amendment. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clauses in the First Amendment is the government or “Congress.” This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference in the subject matter is the reason the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Let’s compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . .” The subject of the clause is clear. It is “All men.” The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses’ better wording. It says “Every individual . . .” In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual. In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a “natural right” of an individual to worship “Almighty God” according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the “right” of an individual, the word “God” naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the “Congress.” The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words “God” “natural right” “worship” or “conscience” do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word “God” in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.

 

Where is “God” in the Constitution?

 

The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like “secularism” and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn’t even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word “God” does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is “God” is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: “Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers.” (Where is God in the Constitution? By David W. New, Esq.; posted by Ed Current; Free Republic; posted 12/10/2004, 5:38:41 PM; Originally from Faith and Action [dead link]; November 04)

 

Sifu God is in the Constitution.

 

Further Reading:

 

How Did the Bible Influence the U.S. Constitution? (eHow.com)

 

Rule of Law Legal Definition (Duhaime.org)

 

Rule of law (TheFreeDictionary.com – Legal Dictionary)

 

JRH 3/14/15

Please Support NCCR

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

The Imperial President


Obama Jesus Self-Portrait

Mark Alexander points out that even Left Wing Constitutional academics are saying President Barack Hussein Obama has crossed the Constitutional line.

 

JRH 7/18/17

Please Support NCCR

************************************

The Imperial President

The Rule of Outlaws

 

By Mark Alexander

Jul. 16, 2014

The Patriot Post

 

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” –Declaration of Independence (1776)

 

According to a source within the Secret Service, Barack Obama refers to himself as “The Bear” when diverting from a planned security route for “meet and greet photo ops.” He announces such departures by saying, “The bear is loose!”

 

Now, I’m sure it’s only coincidence that “The Bear” is also the mascot of the former Soviet Union, and now the Russian Federation. While it would be more fitting if Obama referred to himself as “The Red Squirrel,” his wishful “bear” reference certainly reflects the tyrannical “rule of lawlessness” that now defines his presidential modus operandi. Obamas administration is now defined by his litany of lies and legacy of scandals, most notably this incomplete list of ignominy: The failure of his so-called “economic recovery plan, his unparalleled foreign policy malfeasance, his ”Fast and Furious“ gun control play, his long list of ObamaCare lies, his IRS Enemies List, the dramatic resurgence of al-Qa’ida, the Benghazi cover-up to protect his 2012 re-election bid, his hollow ”Red Line“ threat to Syria, the ”Russian Spring“ in Crimea, the Middle East meltdown in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Israel, the disintegration of Iraq, and now, of course, the VA death panels cover-up and the immigration crisis on our southern border.

 

He has certainly earned the public opinion title of ”worst president since WWII,“ which has negated the smidgeon of good faith he once held with congressional Republicans, and also most of that extended him by all but the most leftwing congressional Democrats.

 

So what’s Obama to do?

 

Having lost control of the House in 2010 and having failed to recover it in 2012, and the pending threat of losing Democrat control of the Senate, Obama has launched, in earnest, a campaign to completely bypass Congress through executive and regulatory diktat, a bold and lawless endeavor unmatched in its unconstitutional offense, except perhaps by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s despotic regime.

 

The range of his executive and regulatory edicts has been very broad, from 19 executive orders constricting Second Amendment rights, to regulations supporting his “war on coal” and avoiding the Keystone XL pipeline.

 

But the most notable abuses have included his repeated rewrites of the so-called ”Affordable Care Act,” in order that it not wound the re-election campaigns of his congressional Democrats.

 

Now, Obama is increasingly audacious in the exercise of these unlegislated diktats.

 

In November of last year, he pretended to be constrained by law in acting on immigration reform, saying, “If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing this through Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition.”

 

But a few months later, Obama proclaimed, “Where Congress isn’t acting, I’ll act on my own.” He complained that “we can’t wait” for Congress, and bragged that he’s “getting things done” by disregarding Rule of Law and the separation of powers set forth in our Constitution.

 

“[W]e are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” he brazenly declared. “I’ve got a pen … and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”

 

These are the words of a despot, and now define Obama’s standard operating procedure, whether secretly ordering the “Taliban Five” terrorist trade for an Army deserter, or choking the economy with his executive and regulatory orders, ostensibly to halt “global warming.”

 

Comment | Share

 

Though Obama claims to be a “professor of constitutional law,” a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has offered severe criticism of Obama’s abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

 

According to Turley, “I think that he has crossed the constitutional line. … When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There’s no license for going it alone in our system, and what he’s done, is very problematic. He’s told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through the active interpretation that I find very problematic.”

 

“What’s emerging,” Turley notes, “is an imperial presidency, an über presidency, as I’ve called it. … Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. … We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system.”

 

Reread those words for their full effect…

 

In his 1973 volume, “The Imperial Presidency,” noted liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, a key adviser to John F. Kennedy, outlined the extreme danger to Liberty posed by lawless executive overreach. At that time, his focus was on Richard Nixon, but his warnings, like those of Turley, have far more application to Barack Obama.

 

So, with 30 more months of Obama’s escalating assault on Liberty, what now? Make no mistake – this “lame duck” is anything but.

 

Turley advises, “If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before [Obama] leaves office, and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority. No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress, not the courts, and not the President.”

 

As the ever-erudite Dr. Charles Krauthammer notes, “[Obama’s] gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law? … This president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: ‘I am going to do X – and I’m not going to wait for Congress.’ That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first. At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.”

 

Of course, I think the good doctor would agree, given his sterling psychiatric credentials, that the rise of Obama’s imperial presidency was entirely predictable, given that he is a textbook case study in Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

 

Speaking in Texas last week, Obama’s egomaniacal arrogance shined through with his lavish first-person references – “I,” “me” and “my” (199 times in all) – when outlining upcoming plans to unilaterally dictate “immigration reform” and additional “economic measures.”

 

This week, he made clear his intent to unilaterally advance his populist “class warfare agenda” to “help working Americans … when Congress won’t act.” In his latest weekly address, Obama insisted, “So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked every serious idea to strengthen the middle class.”

 

That lie earned him a stern rebuke from even The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, as did his earlier claim that Republicans “have filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation that would help the middle class,” about which The Post concluded, “On just about every level, this claim is ridiculous.” But for Obama’s sycophantic legions of useful idiots, fiction trumps fact.

 

So what can Republicans do?

 

Plenty, if they are willing to fight fire with fire, and they better start igniting those precedents now. It’s going to take more than a threat of a lawsuit from House Speaker John Boehner.

 

House Republicans can use their control of the budget to defund enactment and enforcement of Obama’s lawless orders and regulations. Indeed, if they fail to do so, then they violate their own oaths “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, and Rule of Law becomes gravely imperiled by rule of men.

 

Comment | Share

 

Of course, if Republicans don’t act, and we continue racing down this imperialist path to tyranny, there are tens of millions of American Patriots who understand our options.

 

Having recently celebrated Independence Day, I invite you to re-read the Declaration of Independence. This remarkable treatise on Liberty as “endowed by our Creator” addressed an imperial executive who willfully violated that endowment “which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled” all people.

 

Our Founders outlined the “injuries and usurpations” committed by the executive, “all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” They noted, “He has refused his Assent to Laws … He has obstructed the Administration of Justice … He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass (sic) our people, and eat out their substance.”

 

There are undeniable parallels between the imperial powers which gave rise to the American Revolution and the imperial presidency which now threatens the Liberty our Founders, and generations of American Patriots since, have defended with their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor.”

 

Obama now jokes about his lawlessness: “It is lonely, me just doing stuff. … I’m just telling the truth now. I don’t have to run for office again, so I can just let her rip.”

 

In other words, short of rigorous intervention by Congress, this gets much worse before it gets any better.

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

 

_____________________________

*PUBLIUS*

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

Your Patriot Post team of editors and staff depend entirely on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising. Thank you for standing with us!

 

Please fill out the form below or click here to donate by mail.

Independence Day [Message]


T Jefferson statue next to Decl of Independence

I subscribe to the online periodical The Patriot Post. It’s free and so far totally independent of advertisements and totally dependent on the gracious support of free will donations. Thus before I go further I highly encourage you to send some money to keep the fount of Patriotism operating as a source of Conservative Liberty and a promoter of the ideals of America’s Founding Fathers.

 

Since I am on The Patriot Post email list every year around Independence Day I get an email that links to an Independence Day message. I am fairly certain that oft times it is the same message because it is so well written and is quite timelessly relevant. I may have even cross posted it more than once. Guess what, I am doing it again – today.

 

JRH 7/4/14

Please Support NCCR

*******************************************

Independence Day

The Patriot Post

 

“God who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson (1774)

 

Amid all the contemporary political and cultural contests, too many conservatives fail to make the case for overarching eternal truths — whether in debate with adversaries across the aisles of Congress, or with neighbors across Main Street.

 

Lost in the din is the foundational endowment of Essential Liberty, and any debate that does not begin with this eternal truth will end with temporary deceits.

 

The most oft-cited words from our Declaration of Independence are these: “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.”

 

The eternal assertion that Liberty for all people is “endowed by their Creator” and is thus “unalienable” should require no defense, because “we hold these truths to be self-evident,” and because the rights of man are irrevocable from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

 

But the root of all debate between Liberty and tyranny — or, in political parlance, between Right and left — is the contest to assert who endows Liberty — God or man.

 

Contemporary Leftist protagonists seek to replace Rule of Law with the rule of men. This is because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that government is the giver of Liberty.

 

The history of man, since its first record, has repeatedly and tragically documented that when the people settle for the assertion that government is the source of their rights, tyranny is the inevitable result. And tyrants always attempt to undermine Liberty by driving a wedge between it and its foundational endowment by our Creator.

 

For generations, American liberals have driven that wedge by asserting that our Constitution provides a “wall of separation” between church and state. But does it?

 

 

The short answer is “yes,” but it is most certainly not the faux wall constructed by judicial activists, who have grossly adulterated the plain language of our First Amendment especially during the last 50 years.

 

Contrary to what many liberals would have us believe, the words “wall of separation between church and state” do not appear in our Constitution — nor is this notion even implied. Thomas Jefferson penned those words in an obscure 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to concerns about Connecticut’s establishment of Congregationalism as their state church. Jefferson assuaged their concerns, telling the Baptists that the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing a “national church,” but he concluded rightly that the Constitution prohibited the national government from interfering with the matters of state governments — a “wall of separation,” if you will, between federal and state governments.

 

The “wall of separation” argument is thus a phony one. Indeed, it is a blueprint for tyranny.

 

We are created, from the beginning, in the Image of God, and that image is the essence of Liberty, the well of all rights for all people for all time.

 

Our enlightened Founders, in their revolutionary opposition to tyranny, looked far beyond kings and parliaments to the enduring source of the rights of man, and they enumerated in our Declaration of Independence that we are, indeed, created in God’s Image for His purpose, and that no man could strip that endowment from the soul of another. Thus, we have the equal capacity to be free, personal, rational, creative and moral beings, and we are entitled to be so through His endowment.

 

These rights and freedoms were further enshrined in our Constitution.

 

In 1776, John Hancock wrote of Jacob Duché, the first Chaplain appointed by the Continental Congress, “Congress … from a consideration of your … zealous attachment to the rights of America, appoint(s) you their Chaplain.” Duché, Pastor of Philadelphia’s Christ Church, captured the spirit of the American Revolution, saying, “Civil liberty is as much the gift of God in Christ Jesus … as our spiritual freedom… ‘Standing fast’ in that liberty, wherewith Christ, as the great providential Governor of the world, hath made us free.”

 

It is in that spirit that we at The Patriot Post adopted our motto, Veritas vos Liberabit — “The Truth Will Set You Free” (John 8:32). That is the essence of the assertion that we are “endowed by our Creator” with life and Liberty.

 

Ignorance of the true and eternal source of the rights of man is fertile ground for the Left’s assertion that government endows such rights. It is also perilous ground, soaked with the blood of generations of American Patriots. As Jefferson wrote, “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

 

Indeed, the “Cycle of Democracy” demands this tonic. And despite the pervasive assault on Liberty by the current legions of Leftist NeoComs, to paraphrase the great Prussian military historian, theorist and tactician Carl von Clausewitz, “the best defense is a good offense.”

 

Our Founders closed their Declaration with this pledge to each other, and all who would follow: “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

 

In his 1800 letter to fellow Declaration signer Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

 

Like millions of our generation’s American Patriots, I have sworn likewise. We must never forsake our Sacred Honor.

 

No matter what setbacks we face, Liberty is an eternal endowment. Thus, we must hold the lines on defense, and regroup for relentless attack on offense.

 

Never lose faith, fellow Patriots!

 

In honor of this anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, contemplate these wise words of our Founders, and please consider supporting The Patriot Post’s mission in defense of Liberty.

 

Signing Decl. of Independence

 

“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.” –George Washington

 

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” –John Adams

 

“May every citizen … have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of the declaration recorded in the Bible, ‘Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed.'” –Samuel Adams

 

“This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.” –Benjamin Franklin

 

“The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it.” –James Madison

 

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” –Alexander Hamilton

 

“But where says some is the king of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. … [L]et it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.” –Thomas Paine in Common Sense

_________________________________

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

Your Patriot Post team of editors and staff depend entirely on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising. Thank you for standing with us!