Since the early days of this Republic, various of our Founding Fathers were accused of being irreligious, impious, and even atheist. Those accusations are unsupportable lies told by those whose own “tolerance” of the faithful informs not only their personal agendas, but taints and twists their biographical descriptions of the Founders, as well.
Often, for example, most of the most renowned and revered of the men of the founding generation are labeled “deists.” Deism was a theological philosophy popular in the 18th century, especially among the stratum of men associated with the Enlightenment. Stated simply, a deist believes in God, but considers Him an absent master, unconcerned with the quotidian comings and goings of His earthly creations.
Every one of the Founders listed in the following survey (with the possible exception of Benjamin Franklin) would reject such an appellation and in fact never referred to themselves as deists (again, with a passing reference to himself made by Franklin).
While the men mentioned herein held different interpretations of the characteristics of God, of His Son, Jesus Christ, and of the most correct way to worship them, they unanimously and sincerely believed that God was an all-powerful Creator and providentially interceded for mankind, particularly in the quest for liberty and the freedom of conscience that permitted diversity of worship
Barack Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, has certainly made waves. Well-received by the mainstream media, The Baltimore Sun wrote that the President has finally found “his voice” while the ever-dour Bill Press said that Obama was “channeling Teddy Roosevelt.” Yet if talk-show host Rush Limbaugh is correct, the President was channeling someone also long-dead but a lot more red. The radio giant asserts that Obama has “outed” himself, in that he has “announced to the world in no uncertain terms that he is a socialist, if not a Marxist.”
What did Obama say that brought cheers from the Left and jeers from the Right? Among other things, he stated that our relatively free enterprise system not only “doesn’t work” — “it has never worked.”
You are a Republican. You consider yourself a “conservative,” maybe even a “Tea Partier.” But whatever you prefer to call yourself, the truth of the matter is that there are some basic facts of contemporary American political life that you detest.
First, the federal government has grown well beyond anything that our Founding Fathers could have envisioned. Today, it has come to assume authority over virtually every aspect of your life.
Inseparable from this first fact is another: You have far less liberty as an American than you should have under the U.S. Constitution. The exponential expansion of the federal government over the decades has been inevitably attended by an equally exponential diminution of liberty.
Third, both major national parties, Republicans and Democrats, “conservatives” and “liberals” alike, in spite of their assurances to the contrary, have continued to feed the Leviathan that is our federal government.
You want change. You want real change.
The word “revolution” gets tossed around rather loosely these days, which is why it no longer strikes terror in the hearts of conservatives. The French Revolution was a "revolution." So was the Russian Revolution. America's “revolutionary war” was really a war for independence, a war of secession, based on many of the same principles the Confederate States of America claimed in the Southern war for independence, known as the Civil War. And it is hardly surprising, since the “revolutionary” document known as the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian and a slave owner, that neither Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, nor Thomas Jefferson considered themselves revolutionaries. They were fighting for rights they believed were theirs, first as Englishmen and then as citizens of the United States — rights that belonged to them as free men, both by law and by custom and tradition.
Ron Paul has garnered support from a great variety of different groups, as well as from celebrities such as Vince Vaughn and Barry Manilow, and even hip hop performers Prodigy and KRS-One; however, perhaps one of the most interesting and welcome endorsements for the Texas Congressman came this week from an editorial in Forbes magazine.
As the “Fast and Furious” gun-trafficking scandal continues to grow, Congress is now investigating a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) program that was laundering money for Mexican cartels. Meanwhile, multiple cartel leaders and reports continue to suggest that the federal government is deeply involved in the narcotics and arms trades.
According to an article in the New York Times that first revealed the DEA money-laundering scheme to the public, U.S. drug agents supervised by the Justice Department likely laundered hundreds of millions in illegal profits — maybe more. The DEA and other agencies also helped send the illicit cash back across the border to Mexico in operations “orchestrated to get around sovereignty restrictions,” the Times reported in the article, headlined "U.S. Agents Launder Mexican Profits of Drug Cartels."
Fox News has discovered blatant voter fraud in the 2008 Democratic Party primary process in Indiana: the forging of signatures on a petition to put Barack Obama on the ballot. When Charity Rorie, a mother of four in Mishawaka, Indiana, was shown a copy of the petition, she was shocked to see her name. Charity declared,....
The synergetic bond between former House Speakers Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi extends well beyond the 2008 climate-change commercial that has stirred heated criticism among conservatives, as the GOP presidential hopeful has cosponsored 418 bills in Congress with Pelosi. Such a revelation, particularly when coupled with Gingrich’s Freddie Mac connections, liberal-leaning views on illegal immigration, and support for an individual healthcare mandate, underscore Gingrich's waning support for true conservative principles.
The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill (H.R. 10) to prevent the President from imposing major regulations on the country without the approval of Congress . Entitled the REINS Act — Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny — the bill is intended to rein in the executive branch's usurpation of legislative power via issuing rules by executive fiat.
Sponsored by Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.), the REINS Act passed in the House of Representatives by a 241 to 184 vote, with four Democrats joining Republicans to vote in favor of the legislation. Most believe the bill will not likely be taken up in the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, and even if it were to somehow be addressed and approved in the Senate, it would more than likely be vetoed by President Obama.
Congress will soon be consummating its most underactive session in recent decades, as both chambers of the legislature will have passed a meager number of bills compared with other non-election years. As debates over tax policy and government spending heat up Congress, Washington’s seemingly hyperactive legislative hearings are in fact rather fruitless, and many critics have taken the small amount of legislation as indicative of the federal government's waning degree of power.
According to the Congressional Record, through November the House had approved 326 bills, the fewest in at least 10 non-election years; the Senate had passed 368 measures, the fewest since 1995. Conversely, the House passed 970 measures in 2009 and 1,127 in 2007, and the Senate for those years approved 478 and 621, respectively.
"The goal for this Congress is to stress quality over quantity in terms of the flow of legislation on the House floor," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) wrote in a letter last December to his colleagues. "I intend to lengthen the time for consideration of bills in order to improve quality and deliver results. Gone are congratulatory resolutions. Post office namings will be handled on a less frequent basis."