John Dickinson was the principal author of our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation. That document governed our confederation of states for twelve years, from 1777 to 1789. Most secularist historians, and historians in general, ignore Dickinson's contribution to our country, but not this blog. Until the end of the Revolution, he was the most important, prestigious man in the colonies, more respected than Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, or George Washington. He was our most prolific writer, joining the Stamp Act Congress in 1765 where he drafted the Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress (Olive Branch Petition).
Dickinson's fame came with his justification for rebellion against Great Britain. He was the most responsible for educating America on the legal justification for the Revolution. Once the legal justification was met, there was no stopping the Colonists.
Widely published, Dickinson's letters had momentous impact. English politicians studied every sentence and waited with nervous anticipation for each of the 12 epistles to appear in order to gauge the mood of the colonies. It was clear that the Americans were not accepting the taxes with aplomb. "My Lord," wrote Massachusetts Governor Bernard to the English authorities, "this is not a fictitious argument, but a real one." As eloquently as any, Dickinson had provided more intellectual and moral ammunition for liberty.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap16.html
It was also during this time he wrote an important series of essays, Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer, regarding the nonimportation and nonexportation agreements against Great. Britain. These essays were published in London in 1768 by Benjamin Franklin, and later translated to French and published in Paris. In 1774 he attended the first Continental Congress and wrote an Address to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec. There also, in 1775, and in combination with Jefferson, he wrote a Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/dickinson.htm
Dickinson, however, was not for separation from Great Britain, but wanted reconciliation. This was the reason why he was not choosen to help draft the Declaration of Independence. His prestige found him elected President of the 1786 Annapolis convention, and made him America's first hometown hero. Dickinson was the only man to ever be governor of two different states; Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Along with assisting with the Delaware Constitution of 1792, he signed the Constitution, not quite as prominent in the formation of the latter. With a firm reliance on Divine Providence, Dickinson was not a product of the Enlightenment, but was a Christian, understanding Natural Law (Rights) came from Jesus Christ and the Bible:
"Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness... We claim them from a higher source -- from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power, without taking our lives." [bold face mine]
-John Dickinson, An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados, 1766.
Dickinson is remembered as a consummate gentleman and Christian.
"Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity."
-From the Last Will & Testament of John Dickinson, attested March 25, 1808.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Geert Wilders; the Hero!
This week Britain refused entry to Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Wilders was to attend the screening of his short documentary, Fitna, at the House of Lords, but was detained at Heathrow Airport. Wilders' movie only tells the truth about Islam. The notion of "radical muslims" perverting true Islam has been the cry by former leaders George Bush and Tony Blair; nothing could be further from the truth. These jihadists are doing only what Mohammed told them to do in the koran and recorded in the Hadith. The story, is typical of the hypocrisy, that has corrupted England with its appeasement policies, and poor judgment. England has been anti-semite, and pro-arab for at least the last one-hundred years, playing both sides to the glory of England. Lord Balfour's Declaration of 1917 was not representative of the English people.
Amid all the terrorism and persecution of Jews by Arabs during the 1920's, the English did nothing, even though they had the mandate granted by the League of Nations in 1922. The Blame for England's hypocrisy starts with one of its well known subjects, Winston Churchill. According to biographer William Manchester, Churchill was a key player in the formation of Israel:
"[A]s colonial secretary, he [Churchill] was responsible for Britain's postwar diplomacy in the Middle East. He planned the Jewish state, created the nations of Iraq and Jordan, and picked their rulers."
-Manchester, The Last Lion, p. xxiv. London, 1988.
Since when was the formation of Iraq and Jordan part of the mandate of Israel, and Zionism? It's obvious the British wanted to appease the arabs with the thoughts of future oil exploration. England playing both sides is a sad testimony. Her officers actually led Arab legions in the war of 1948, even though the Arab nations sided with the Nazis and killed Englishmen, while Jews fought for England.
The sun has truly set on England; God judging England for her treatment of Israel. Out of the original mandate, Israel received 13 percent of what was initially alloted to her. Once the five arab nations declared war on Israel, the United States demanded a UN Security Council resolution creating an immediate ceasefire; incredibly, as Islam expert Dave Hunt explains:
"Britain rejected the cease-fire resolution confident that the Arabs would destroy Israel."
Hunt, Judgment Day, p.93. The Berean Call, 2005.
Britain is also guilty of aiding and abetting terrorist attacks against Israel. In November, 1947, Arabs murdered at least eight Jews, amidst daily ambushes, and bombings, while Britain looked the other way.
England's fall and subsequent appeasement for the Arabs and Islam is nothing new. She's been pro-arab for years, which defy's reality. God only knows the future if England is taken over by Islam, mandated with Sharia Law. Does the Queen want to be completely covered in Black? Do English women understand their testimony in Sharia Law is half that of a man? Guess what happens if someone is raped? Exactly, nothing happens!
When will the world, and England speak out against the demonic religion called Islam, which has declared Israel's destruction, and takeover of the world? The English are professionals at appeasement, (Chamberlain comes to mind) the future of England is at stake. At least Geert Wilders speaks the truth, and tries to warn the world of Islam. England treated Wilders like anyone else who speaks out against the religion of the Arabs; with discrimination. But why? Have the English read the koran, or Hadith? Why are the English afraid to offend muslims, whose goal is to take over England and the world? God only knows.
Amid all the terrorism and persecution of Jews by Arabs during the 1920's, the English did nothing, even though they had the mandate granted by the League of Nations in 1922. The Blame for England's hypocrisy starts with one of its well known subjects, Winston Churchill. According to biographer William Manchester, Churchill was a key player in the formation of Israel:
"[A]s colonial secretary, he [Churchill] was responsible for Britain's postwar diplomacy in the Middle East. He planned the Jewish state, created the nations of Iraq and Jordan, and picked their rulers."
-Manchester, The Last Lion, p. xxiv. London, 1988.
Since when was the formation of Iraq and Jordan part of the mandate of Israel, and Zionism? It's obvious the British wanted to appease the arabs with the thoughts of future oil exploration. England playing both sides is a sad testimony. Her officers actually led Arab legions in the war of 1948, even though the Arab nations sided with the Nazis and killed Englishmen, while Jews fought for England.
The sun has truly set on England; God judging England for her treatment of Israel. Out of the original mandate, Israel received 13 percent of what was initially alloted to her. Once the five arab nations declared war on Israel, the United States demanded a UN Security Council resolution creating an immediate ceasefire; incredibly, as Islam expert Dave Hunt explains:
"Britain rejected the cease-fire resolution confident that the Arabs would destroy Israel."
Hunt, Judgment Day, p.93. The Berean Call, 2005.
Britain is also guilty of aiding and abetting terrorist attacks against Israel. In November, 1947, Arabs murdered at least eight Jews, amidst daily ambushes, and bombings, while Britain looked the other way.
England's fall and subsequent appeasement for the Arabs and Islam is nothing new. She's been pro-arab for years, which defy's reality. God only knows the future if England is taken over by Islam, mandated with Sharia Law. Does the Queen want to be completely covered in Black? Do English women understand their testimony in Sharia Law is half that of a man? Guess what happens if someone is raped? Exactly, nothing happens!
When will the world, and England speak out against the demonic religion called Islam, which has declared Israel's destruction, and takeover of the world? The English are professionals at appeasement, (Chamberlain comes to mind) the future of England is at stake. At least Geert Wilders speaks the truth, and tries to warn the world of Islam. England treated Wilders like anyone else who speaks out against the religion of the Arabs; with discrimination. But why? Have the English read the koran, or Hadith? Why are the English afraid to offend muslims, whose goal is to take over England and the world? God only knows.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Abraham Lincoln: The Racist!
A cursory examination of Abraham Lincoln's writings prove beyond a doubt he was indeed a racist. When the Civil War was inevitable, he changed his tune, but only for a bogus explanation. Now, Lincoln is glorified, history perverted, with blacks adoring Abraham Lincoln. But what is the actual truth about Abraham Lincoln? The truth is Lincoln was a white supremacist, masquerading as a Christian, quoting the Bible as if he believed it, to save the Union from something other than slavery. To Lincoln's defense, I doubt he ever claimed to be a Christian, his words affirming the Bible and God were political in nature. Let us read what Lincoln said about negroes, and slavery:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
Not only was Lincoln a racist, he allowed the Confederacy to keep slavery:
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State."
-Abraham Lincoln-March of 1861
and
"The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union."
-This resolution was passed unanimously by Congress on July 23, 1861.
The above quote contradicts the quote below where Lincoln says the negroe race is the reason for the Civil War:
“See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. “Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.” [bold face mine]
— Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371.
Lincoln did not care about freeing the slaves! He incorrectly believed there was another reason that threatened the Union:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that"
-Lincoln, (Voices of America, p.138).
Blacks today are Democrats, the party of slavery since Thomas Jefferson. How ironic is that? The so-called emancipator freed a race of people that aligns with the Democratic Party, which departed from their racist platform in the 1970's to gain the black voting bloc. Here is the last quote from Lincoln to his friend, the Vice President of the Confederacy:
"Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you that once, as a friend, and still I hope not as an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington."
-Abraham Lincoln to Alexander Stephens-Vice President of the Confederacy. Springfield, Ills., Dec. 22, 1860. Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150.
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
Not only was Lincoln a racist, he allowed the Confederacy to keep slavery:
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State."
-Abraham Lincoln-March of 1861
and
"The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union."
-This resolution was passed unanimously by Congress on July 23, 1861.
The above quote contradicts the quote below where Lincoln says the negroe race is the reason for the Civil War:
“See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. “Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.” [bold face mine]
— Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371.
Lincoln did not care about freeing the slaves! He incorrectly believed there was another reason that threatened the Union:
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that"
-Lincoln, (Voices of America, p.138).
Blacks today are Democrats, the party of slavery since Thomas Jefferson. How ironic is that? The so-called emancipator freed a race of people that aligns with the Democratic Party, which departed from their racist platform in the 1970's to gain the black voting bloc. Here is the last quote from Lincoln to his friend, the Vice President of the Confederacy:
"Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you that once, as a friend, and still I hope not as an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington."
-Abraham Lincoln to Alexander Stephens-Vice President of the Confederacy. Springfield, Ills., Dec. 22, 1860. Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150.
What is Separation of Church and State Anyway?
Many, if not all Americans continue to believe and promote the false notion of Separation of Church and State. I understand this is taught at every level in the schools, the evidence of, the very elites of government and power believe. The separation dogma is infested on the blogosphere, including this recent post by judecowell, at his blog: Jude's Threshold. I have to mention this particular post since the blogger makes an assertion but provides no evidence for its support. Here is the jist of the post:
"Otherwise religious persecution wouldn’t have been long in coming which would have negated our basic tenet of ’separation of church and state’ which the Founding Fathers embedded within our freedom documents…not the exact words, mind you, but their wishes were made clear."
With that logic, I could say Hinduism is not embedded within our freedom documents, but their wishes were clear. Where is the talk of this separation doctrine at the Constitutional Convention, in the various State Ratifying Conventions, or in any of the ratifiers' writings?
Another blog of note is Faith in Public Life. They, like most everyone else, assume separation of church and state, but provide no support for it. This author is named Kristin. She wrote a post the other day as though separation of church and state is common knowledge. The recent stimulus by our government was the pretext to refer to the separation dogma:
"This is standard practice, not some assault on Christianity. Also, it's standard practice that sensibly rooted in our Constitution, which protects against the establishment of religion (which some people seem to forget)."
Not only does Kristin fail to provide any support for separation of church and state, the stimulus does discriminate against people of faith. Proponents of the Stimulus Bill could be trying to save money, but ultimately, it still is discrimination by exempting any monies for rennovating buildings that house religious worship. Christians are no doubt the target. On the same page as Kristin's article, former Vice President Al Gore supports separation of church and state in the schools. Contrary to Al Gore, the government, and media, the Founding Fathers mandated teaching the Bible in all schools, as well as spent tax dollars to promote Christianity to the Indians, et al. It is only recently that uninformed politicians have perverted the will of the Founding Fathers.
Inspired, at Journey of Cross and Quill posts the Father of American Medicine's: Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical by Benjamin Rush, a notable Founding Father. Will one day the American people be educated on the real definition of Separation of Church and State?
"Otherwise religious persecution wouldn’t have been long in coming which would have negated our basic tenet of ’separation of church and state’ which the Founding Fathers embedded within our freedom documents…not the exact words, mind you, but their wishes were made clear."
With that logic, I could say Hinduism is not embedded within our freedom documents, but their wishes were clear. Where is the talk of this separation doctrine at the Constitutional Convention, in the various State Ratifying Conventions, or in any of the ratifiers' writings?
Another blog of note is Faith in Public Life. They, like most everyone else, assume separation of church and state, but provide no support for it. This author is named Kristin. She wrote a post the other day as though separation of church and state is common knowledge. The recent stimulus by our government was the pretext to refer to the separation dogma:
"This is standard practice, not some assault on Christianity. Also, it's standard practice that sensibly rooted in our Constitution, which protects against the establishment of religion (which some people seem to forget)."
Not only does Kristin fail to provide any support for separation of church and state, the stimulus does discriminate against people of faith. Proponents of the Stimulus Bill could be trying to save money, but ultimately, it still is discrimination by exempting any monies for rennovating buildings that house religious worship. Christians are no doubt the target. On the same page as Kristin's article, former Vice President Al Gore supports separation of church and state in the schools. Contrary to Al Gore, the government, and media, the Founding Fathers mandated teaching the Bible in all schools, as well as spent tax dollars to promote Christianity to the Indians, et al. It is only recently that uninformed politicians have perverted the will of the Founding Fathers.
Inspired, at Journey of Cross and Quill posts the Father of American Medicine's: Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical by Benjamin Rush, a notable Founding Father. Will one day the American people be educated on the real definition of Separation of Church and State?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)