Search This Blog

Thursday, December 31, 2015

John Fea and the secularists are at it again

The secular media uses John Fea as one of their spokesholes to spread distortions of the founding. Here is the link to his blog, The Way of Improvement Leads Home. His book, the cover shown on the front page, which I have previously read, is hideous. The first page has an historical error, distorting the meaning of the passage (The treaty of Tripoli). Unfortunately for Fea, the man who signed the treaty called us a Christian nation; proving Fea's context is wrong. Almost every page of his book has an error or distorts the founding in some way. The book is a shoddy piece of work. This other jacked up blog carries the same distortions.

This link links to another post where Fea attempts to undermine an evangelical pastor, even though the pastor is correct about the framers allowing pastors to run for office, since there was no modern separation of church and state. Fea is attacking the pastor with a useless strawman argument.

Here is Fea's first comment, "In fact, only a few states had religious establishments after the American Revolution (I am thinking here of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and, in a less official capacity, South Carolina)." 

According to secularists, to mention Christianity in a state constitution would violate separation doctrine, so Fea doesn't understand it anyway. Christianity is listed in the state constitutions and with official authority:

The States all formed Christianity as their religion and the context of the first amendment is the states:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the: Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. [p.469]

The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:“I, _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” [p.203]

The Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording: The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both. [p.179]

NEW YORK 1777 (until 1821) That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected.

NEW JERSEY 1776 (until 1844) XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

How is this not official? The rights listed are from the laws of nature and natures God. The Christian philosophers spread rights of conscience, property et al from only one place; the bible. Freedom of conscience is from Jehovah:

“Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we believe to be of Divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.  If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man." 
--James Madison, memorial and remonstrance

Fea writes more drivel, "The Bible would have influenced their construction, even though it's never mentioned,' he says. 'But as a historian, I need a smoking gun. Maybe they left it out because they deliberately wanted to leave it out.'""

Christianity was so intertwined with colonial life, they didn't need to quote chapter and verse. Our entire legal system is based on the bible:

"Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine."
--James Wilson Wilson, Bird, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L. L. D., vol. 1, Lorenzo Press, Philadelphia, 1804, pg 105.

Secularists are ignorant of our Christian foundation. The framers quoted Christian philosophers such as: Grotius, Puffendorf, Rutherford, Calvin (Federalist 10), Blackstone and Montesquieu. Same as not needing white history month, but every other race needs their own month.

Here is more:

"how could the "official religion of America" (whatever that means) be found in the individual colonies or states?"  I am confused."

Of course you are confused. Only a fool doesn't see the context of the bill of rights must be the same as the states, given almost all the same men drafted and ratified both. The official religion of the nation is the official religion of the states, besides the fact the framers spoke to the entire nation saying we were a Christian nation, including the father of the constitution:

"If the public homage of a people can ever be worthy the favorable regard of the Holy and Omniscient Being to whom it is addressed, it must be that in which those who join in it are guided only by their free choice, by the impulse of their hearts and the dictates of their consciences; and such a spectacle must be interesting to all Christian nations as proving that religion, that gift of Heaven for the good of man, freed from all coercive edicts, from that unhallowed connection with the powers of this world which corrupts religion into an instrument or an usurper of the policy of the state...Upon these principles and with these views the good people of the United States are invited, in conformity with the resolution aforesaid, to dedicate the day above named to the religious solemnities therein recommended. [bold face mine]
--Given at Washington, this 23d day of July, A. D. 1813.[seal.] JAMES MADISON 

Moreover, the 2nd president and one of two people who signed the bill of rights said we were a Christian nation. 
I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect. [bold face mine]
--John Adams, The man who signed the Treaty of Tripoli, Inaugural Address, In the City of Philadelphia, Saturday, March 4, 1797. 

Was John Adams confused? This also proves nature's God was Jehovah as Adams helped draft the DOI.

Only people like Fea would fail to see all the evidence and fail to understand nature's God is not Jehovah when the framers prayed to Jesus Christ immediately after ratifying it:

"[W]ith their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God.
--Continental Congress, November 1, 1777. National Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress. 

In fact, the principles under the articles are the same as now, so the context of religion never changed:
We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation.
--Federalist #40

What of the first chief justice saying religion refers to Christianity?
No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. The American population is entirely Christian; and with us Christianity and religion are identical. It would be strange indeed if, with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it. [bold face mine]
--Chief Justice John Marshall to Jasper Adams, May 9th, 1833.

Was the Chief Justice confused?

Even Virginia established Christianity as their religion:
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical [Christian assessment bill]. [bold face mine]
--VA Act for Religious Freedom
The States didn't want clergy running for office in order to build up their faith again, like Patrick Henry believed, which was the reason for the assessment bill. Fea's rationale on this issue is wrong as usual.

More from Fea, "It's hard to make the same argument if you're studying Virginia or Pennsylvania or the Carolinas or Georgia," Fea says. "We've taken that New England model and extrapolated from it over the last 200 or 300 years into some kind of view of the nation as a whole."

If Fea knew his craft, he never would have said the above. Here is Georgia:

CHRISTIANITY will be extended by the execution of this design; since, the good discipline established by the Society, will reform the manners of those miserable objects, who shall be by them subsisted; and the example of a whole Colony, who shall behave in a just, moral, and religious manner, will contribute greatly towards the conversion of the Indians, and taking off the prejudices received from the profligate lives of such who have scarce any thing of Christianity but the name.

---James Oglethorpe, Founding Vision for Georgia (1733).

d'Tocqueville also disagrees with Fea:
In was in the English colonies… better known as the states of New England, that the two or three main principles now forming the basic social theory of the United States were combined. New England principles spread first to the neighboring states and then…to those more distant, finally penetrating everywhere… Their influence now extends beyond its limits over the whole American world…”
--Alex d’Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Book I, ch. 2.

Virginia and the Carolinas were the same, the former more orthodox.

Fea's confusion leads him to this comment, "I would argue that Anglicanism and other forms of Christianity never came to define the culture of 17th-century Virginia in the way that Puritanism defined the culture of 17th-century Massachusetts Bay or Plymouth."

What does this straw man statement have to do with our Christian nation? He's so deceptive, he tries to bring in culture as if its not Christian or moral enough and downplay the facts. 

Here's some more:

"Was the Continental Congress influenced by covenant theology?  Maybe.  But good historians are divided over whether this theology influenced the delegates who did not hail from New England.  I would argue that it did not."

The idea of abdication in the doi is that the king violated his covenant of protection to the people, therefore forfeited his authority to rule. This is called covenant theology found in the Declaration of Independence. Were the new jersey delegates, Witherspoon and Stockton from Puritan New England? Or Livingston from New York? Or Rush, Morton, Wilson and Clymer from Pennsylvania? Or Rodney, Read and McKean from Delaware? Or Francis Lightfoot Lee, Braxton, R.H.Lee, Harrison and Nelson from Virginia? 

Here's the Father of the Revolution directly refuting Fea:
The people of this country, alone, have formally and deliberately chosen a government for themselves, and with open and uninfluenced consent bound themselves into a social compact. Here no man proclaims his birth or wealth as a title to honorable distinction, or to sanctify ignorance and vice with the name of hereditary authority. He who has most zeal and ability to promote public felicity, let him be the servant of the public. This is the only line of distinction drawn by nature.
--Samuel Adams, An ORATION Delivered at the State-House, In PHILADELPHIA, To A Very Numerous AUDIENCE; On THURSDAY the 1st of AUGUST 1776.

The Calvinist Adams was not speaking of a secular compact.
God help all those who spread junk about the founding.

Friday, December 25, 2015

Secularism and Islam.

Secularists and fake Christians are everywhere in this once great Christian nation. Perverting Christianity is enough to be rebuked, but destroying the nation's foundation
is the sign of the times. More than ever, infidels who claim to know Christ, distort His word, and claim to know the founding of the United States, yet spread ideas that falsely describe both, and leading people astray about our founding. Most of these ignorant fools know as much about the founding as they do about the religion of Islam; being poor scholars of the Koran and Hadith. John Fea is one of these losers who post on the referenced website.

This website has a post with quotes from the founding fathers referring to Islam, insomuch as the context of the quotes is beyond their bloated minds.

The lib hack who wrote this waste of space is Juan Cole, from the university of Michigan no less. When the author writes Benjamin Franklin was a framer of the constitution, his goal is to equate Franklin with the other framers, yet he was more of a quiet observer than framer of the document. He did give a noble speech imploring God's assistance, but claiming anything more is disingenuous.

Franklin wrote, "his Autobiography concerning a non-denominational place of public preaching he helped found “so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.” 

However, Franklin did not know what Islam was, so Franklin could not defend Islam at all. If Franklin read this one statement from the hadith, he never would have allowed a Muslim to preach in his building, since true Islam violates everything he believed about liberty:

Tabari [hadith] IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut them [women] in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur'an." 

That's all Franklin needed to know, but there's more, much more to offend everyone with any decency and virtue found in the Christian dispensation the founding fathers put into the constitution. Th

Tabari I:280 "Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid."

Islam is anathema to the constitution and the gospel of Jesus Christ it was founded on. the hadith claims Jesus was white man. It's interesting Farrakhan and black musl belie white people are devils, so what does that make Jesus? Here is a taste of what Mohammed and his henchmen spread upon the earth. Important to note is the Hadith must be inspired, in twisted Muslims mind as the koran does not contain the essential five pillars of Islam:


Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." 

Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)." 

Ishaq:324[Hadith] "He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'" 

Ishaq:300 "I am fighting in Allah's service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah's war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good." 

Ishaq:587 "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace." 


Bukhari:V4B52N220[Hadith] "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'" 

Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle." 

Qur'an:8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned." 

Ishaq:326 "If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah's enemies." 

Qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land." 

Ishaq:588 "When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves." 


Ishaq:208 "When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound themselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances." 

Ishaq:472 "Muhammad's Companions are the best in war." 

Qur'an:8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: 'Wipe the infidels out to the last.'" 

Qur'an:8:12 "Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: 'I am with you. Give firmness to the Believers. I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'" 

Qur'an:8:15 "Believers, when you meet unbelieving infidels in battle while you are marching for war, never turn your backs to them. If any turns his back on such a day, unless it be in a stratagem of war, a maneuver to rally his side, he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge!" 

Qur'an:8:39 "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam." 


Qur'an:2:216 "Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not." [Another translation reads:] "Warfare is ordained for you." 

Qur'an:4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward." 

Bukhari:V4B52N44 "A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, 'Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.' He replied, 'I do not find such a deed.'" 

Bukhari:V1B2N25 "Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next best in goodness?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.'" 


Tabari IX:69[Hadith] "Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us." 

Tabari VIII:141 "The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah that night was: 'Kill! Kill! Kill!'" 

Bukhari:V5B59N512 "The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and children taken captive." 

Ishaq:489 "Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing." 


Qur'an 5:33 "The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly." 

Tabari VIII:122

Ishaq:515 "The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah's chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him." 

Bukhari:V4B54N487 "The Prophet said, 'The Hell Fire is 69 times hotter than ordinary worldly fires.' So someone said, 'Allah's Apostle, wouldn't this ordinary fire have been sufficient to torture the unbelievers?'" 

Bukhari:V4B52N260 "Ali burnt some [former Muslims alive] and this news reached Ibn Abbas, who said, 'Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, "Don't punish with Allah's Punishment." No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, "If a Muslim discards his Islamic religion, kill him."'" 


Bukhari:V4B55N546 "Allah's Apostle said, 'Gabriel has just now told me of the answer. If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble him, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.'" 

Qur'an 15:26 "Allah created Adam from sticky clay, meaning viscous and sweet smelling slime, being stinking. It became stinking slime after having been compact soil." 

Qur'an 80:17 "Be cursed man! He has self-destructed. From what stuff did He create him? From nutfa (male and female semen drops) He created him and set him in due proportion." 

Tabari I:258 "Allah sent Gabriel to the earth to bring Him some clay. The earth said, 'I take refuge in Allah against you mutilating me. Then He sent the angel of death. He took some soil from the earth and made a mixture. He did not take it from a single place but took red, white, and black soil. Therefore, the children of Adam came out different." 


Tabari I:280 "Allah said, 'It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.' Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid." 

Qur'an 4:3 "If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with orphans, marry women of your choice who seem good to you, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to do justice (to so many), then only one, or (a slave) that you possess, that will be more suitable. And give the women their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, eat it with enjoyment, take it with right good cheer and absorb it (in your wealth)." 

Qur'an 4:11 "Allah directs you in regard of your Children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females.... These are settled portions ordained by Allah." 

Bukhari:V1B22N28 "The Prophet said: 'I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.' When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, 'All the favors done for them by their husbands.'" 

Such is only part of the death cult of Islam.

Islam is totally satanic given Mohammed claimed to be demon possessed at least twice. On that alone, Islam would have been outlawed. Had the founding fathers read this Islamic garbage, they would have outlawed it in the constitution.

The fact is, the founding fathers did not study Islam like they did Christianity, where they were required to read the bible everyday and most of them were saved believers. None of them knew the theology or even what the five pillars of Islam was, since they aren't in the koran and they didn't read the hadith, but the founding fathers could tell you what the gospel was.

As to the other statements of Juan Cole, the other founding fathers refuted Jefferson's belief that civil rights did not come from the laws of nature and nations, which is the biblical God. Neither did Locke know Islam.

The founding fathers were taught in seminary that islam was a religion of Abraham, that is all. It was also taught at universities in Europe.

George Washington made a statement against Islam, yet he was ignorant of what it was as well. He thought it was peaceful, yet saw its true side that we do today. After all, a peaceful Muslim is not a true Muslim. They are hypocrites Mohammed hates more than Jews and Christians.
Let me ask you, my dear marquis, in such an enlightened, in such aliberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical states of Barbary? Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind or crush them into non-existence.
--GW to Lafayette, Aug 15, 1786

The Muslims of Barbary were imprisoning our sailors and those of Europe, bribing Washington's government. Most likely they murdered some of our people, but if they didn't, Washington still wanted to destroy those terrorists.

The rest of that article from that ignorant college teacher smells with the stench of liberalism and appeasement. The treaty of Tripoli is obviously flawed regarding Islam, having never addressed it. Never would Washington hire any Muslims if he knew the truth about that cult. As the libs do today, GW mistakenly thought Islamic terrorism was not true Islam. Sadly, Washington took Islam as he received it, but GW was a statesman not a theologian.

The lib professor writes more madness,  "If Goode sponsored a bill to limit immigration for the express purpose of excluding Muslim immigrants or preventing the free exercise of Islam, the bill would be unconstitutional."

Yet the founding fathers only wanted certain people immigrating. They wanted to pick and choose who came into the nation. Prohibiting a group of people or individuals from entering the country is perfectly normal, especially Muslims. All immigration from the middle east should be halted immediately. Illegals would and should be deported immediately as they were not welcome:

Mr. Madison.--When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States. Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.
It may be a question of some nicety, how far we can make our law to admit an alien to the right of citizenship, step by step; but there is no doubt we may, and ought to require residence as an essential.
-JM, Dec. 3, 1790, first congress

By "abuses" Madison was not referring to subverting the law of nations in article 1 section 8 through illegal immigration, either were the others in the naturalization debates. He couldn't imagine no one doing anything about it. 

The rest of that stupid article on the first amendment is indicative of a lack of understanding of our founding