Posts Tagged ‘George Washington’

America’s Descent into Chaos and Depravity, Part 3

July 7, 2015
Revelation 18 and the fate of America

Revelation 18 and the fate of America

Excerpted from Chapter 5 of Revelation 18 and the fate of America.]

. . . and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!”

Revelation 18:2b

Prayer Out of the Schools.  The United States Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren issued three crushing decisions on prayer in public schools.  The first was in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale) and two in 1963 (Murray v. Curlett and Abington Township School District v. Schempp). The decision to ban prayer and Bible reading from public schools was made as a result of the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the First Amendment and the “wall of separation between church and state” dogma.

In the 1962 Engel v. Vitale case the issue centered on a prayer drafted by the New York State Board of Regents.  It simply read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”  Although it was not a biblical prayer or denominational prayer, the parents of ten students took offense and sued the Hyde Park, New York school district claiming the prayer violated the U.S. Constitution.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.  The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

The Board of Regents believed that such a non-descript, non-denominational prayer would get the students off to a good daily start and encourage good moral character, promote spiritual guidance and help overcome juvenile delinquency.  Since students were not required to participate and participation in the prayer was completely optional, the educators felt they were on solid constitutional ground.

The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 3, 1962.  Nearly three months later the Court rendered a majority 6-1 decision on June 25.  Associate Justice Hugo Black rendered the opinion for the Court.

In part, Justice Black wrote for the majority: “This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents . . . they recommended and published as a part of their ‘Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools,’ saying: ‘We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program.’

“. . . We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents’ prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. . . .”

Without citing any references, Justice Black then went on to enlist Thomas Jefferson to support his contention and conclusions about the “religious nature of prayer”.

Hear my prayer, O God; Give ear to the words of my mouth.

Psalm 54:2

In the paragraph containing the Court’s decision, Black wrote: “The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State’s use of the Regents’ prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion

must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.”

Associate Justice Potter Stewart was the lone dissenting vote.  Justices Felix Frankfurter and Byron White took no part in the decision.

In part, Justice Stewart summarized the case as he saw it.  “A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them and upon their parents, their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that in permitting this brief nondenominational prayer the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States.  I think this decision is wrong.”

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985)

Justice Stewart was appointed to the Court on October 14, 1958 by President Dwight Eisenhower and confirmed by the U.S. Senate the following May in a 70-17 vote.  All dissenters were Democrats.  Stewart was a centrist Republican who believed that the Warren Court misinterpreted the First Amendment “Establishment Clause” and exceeded the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.

“The Court does not hold, nor could it,” Stewart wrote, “that New York has interfered with the free exercise of anybody’s religion. For the state courts have made clear that those who object to reciting the prayer must be entirely free of any compulsion to do so, including any ‘embarrassments and pressures.’. . .  the Court says that in permitting school children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have established ‘an official religion.’

“With all respect,” he continued, “I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an ‘official religion’ is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation. . . .”

Religion is necessary to correct the effects of learning.  Without religion I believe learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind . . .

Dr. Benjamin Rush, Letter to John Armstrong on March 19, 1783

Justice Stewart went on to point out the inconsistencies of the nation’s religious observances.  “At the opening of each day’s Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God.  Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court.’  Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer.  Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy [then in office], has upon assuming his Office asked the protection and help of God. . . .

“In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words ‘one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’  In 1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer.  Since 1865 the words ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ have been impressed on our coins.”

Stewart wrote that he could list countless other examples but that his position could be summed by the fact that, “It was . . . this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: ‘We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being’” [see Zorach v. Clauson].

“I do not believe that this Court,” Stewart concluded, “or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned established an ‘official religion’ in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case.”

Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891-1974)

Warren was appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1953 by President Dwight Eisenhower. Warren, although a Republican, was philosophically a centrist to liberal in his judicial renderings.  He served on the Court until 1969.

A year later, on the same day, the same Court (with Arthur J. Goldberg, a Democrat replacing Frankfurter) decided two other contentious cases that were argued before the Court at the same time concerning school prayer— Murray v. Curlett and Abington Township School District v. Schempp.

In the Murray v. Curlett case, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a radical militant atheist, who was despised and hated by many Christians and fellow atheists, brought suit against the Baltimore, Maryland school board.  Like the previous complaint in New York, O’Hair sued because she claimed that her son William’s school violated the First Amendment by having students recite the “Lord’s Prayer” (Matthew 6:9-13).  She also came against the school board’s approval of the daily reading from the Bible.

14th Amendment

Section 1 [of 5]. . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Passed by Congress on June 13, 1866

Before reaching the Supreme Court, a local Maryland judge, J. Gilbert Pendergast, dismissed O’Hair’s petition, saying, “It is abundantly clear that petitioners’ real objective is to drive every concept of religion out of the public school system.”  The Maryland Court of Appeals had a similar viewpoint and concluded that, “Neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to stifle all rapport between religion and government.”

In the Abington Township School District [of Pennsylvania] v. Schempp the complaint was similar—that the voluntary student participation in morning prayer and listening to a teacher recitation of ten verses of the Bible was unconstitutional.

In its majority 8-1 decision in both cases, with Justice Stewart once again being the lone dissenter, the Court once again cited its position as in Engel v. Vitale but with many more pages of nebulous Founder legal positions and case law.  The bottom line was that, again Thomas Jefferson’s non-binding, non-Constitutional statement on the “wall of separation between church and state” was held up as the justification for their affirmative decision for the plaintiffs.  When attorney for the petitioners, Leonard Kerpelman, used Jefferson’s statement in his presentation and implied it was in the Constitution, Justice Stewart quickly interrupted and asked him where it occurred.  A silence fell over the Court as Kerpelman was stumped for an answer.

In writing his dissent, Justice Stewart stated, in part:

I think the records in the two cases before us are so fundamentally deficient as to make impossible an informed or responsible determination of the constitutional issues presented. Specifically, I cannot agree that on these records we can say that the Establishment Clause has necessarily been violated. But I think there exist serious questions under both that provision and the Free Exercise Clause – insofar as each is imbedded in the Fourteenth Amendment – which require the remand of these cases for the taking of additional evidence.

The First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” It is, I think, a fallacious oversimplification to regard these two provisions as establishing a single constitutional standard of “separation of church and state,” which can be mechanically applied in every case to delineate the required boundaries between government and religion. We err in the first place if we do not recognize, as a matter of history and as a matter of the imperatives of our free society, that religion and government must necessarily interact in countless ways. Secondly, the fact is that while in many contexts the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause fully complement each other, there are areas in which a doctrinaire reading of the Establishment Clause leads to irreconcilable conflict with the Free Exercise Clause.

Religion is the only solid basis of good morals: therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.

Gouverneur Morris, Signer, U.S. Constitution

Interestingly and sadly, not one Christian group, church or organization chose to file a brief in either case on behalf of prayer or Bible reading in the public schools.  However, it is important to note that these joint decisions by the Supreme Court, DID NOT, as widely believed, remove prayer or Bible reading from the public schools.  The Court only concluded that “government-sponsored” prayer and Bible reading were a violation of the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment.  Students in public schools are still free to pray or read the Bible on their own or to conduct or participate in prayer or Bible study groups.

In essence, what the Warren Supreme Court decided to do was to deliberately misinterpret and re-write the First Amendment.  They changed the intent of the “Establishment Clause” of the Founders and replaced it with at statement out-of-context made by Jefferson in a letter.  North Carolina’s senator at the time, Sam Ervin (1896-1985), quipped, “I should like to ask whether we would be far wrong in saying that in this decision the Supreme Court has held that God is unconstitutional and for that reason the public school must be segregated against Him?”

Perhaps ironically, O’Hair’s son, William J. Murray, became a Christian and a Baptist minister and is chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition and author of My Life Without God.

Advertisements

Can Judgment be Averted?

April 18, 2015
Revelation 18 and the fate of America

Revelation 18 and the fate of America

[Excerpted from Revelation 18 and the fate of America, pp. 341-347.]

Is America the Babylon mentioned in Revelation 18?  Possibly.  One thing seems certain, the Babylon in Revelation 18 and elsewhere in Revelation is not the historic Babylon of the Old Testament or of King Nebuchadnezzar’s era.  By description, the Babylon of Revelation 18 is the epitome of a people or nation that has strayed from God and His foundational truths; rejected Him and have become prideful and arrogant, no longer needing God’s direction or input into their lives.  This Babylon represents a people whose sins are so great they seem unforgiveable and insurmountable.  They have become wealthy and have lived extravagantly and the rest of the world has depended on them for their own well being and prosperity.

The leaders of the United States, over many decades, have brought the country to the brink of destruction.  “The only sure cure for many of the ills of the modern world which men are vainly trying to remove by means of social and economic antidotes is to be found in the faith in God and loyalty to the eternal verities of religion,” stated Warren G. Harding (1865-1923), 29th President of the United States.  “The recognition of a personal God and of the individual accountability of men and women to him, for their conduct are the foundations of the highest patriotism and of those civic virtues which alone can make men and nations morally great. The human race has been getting away from its religious moorings. It needs a revival of the sincere conception of the personal relationship of God to man and man to God; a restoration of faith in the fundamentals of religion that are eternal. The world needs the assurance of faith in the Almighty, and the tranquility which comes alone of that faith. That faith in God which has made the ancient Hebrew nation great, is still needed to make nations great today.”

The story and history of America, in many ways, parallels that of ancient Israel.  As long as Israel followed God and obeyed His laws, they prospered as a people and nation.  When they chose to reject Him and follow after the dictates of their own hearts, the nation faltered and crumbled and often was overrun by their enemies.

Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse:  the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you today;  and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you today, to go after other gods which you have not known. Deuteronomy 11:26-28

President Abraham Lincoln, in his speech on March 30, 1863, proclaiming a National Fast Day, spoke words that still ring true today.  “We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity,” he noted. “We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!” 

The Founders’ Wisdom and Insight.  When it comes to overturning or changing a tyrannical government the people only have four choices: a military coup that throws out the current occupants of office; a people’s revolution that forces the despotic leaders out; vote them out or a revolution of prayer and fasting.  The first two, while they can bring more immediate results, are not the American way and can result in bloodshed.   The third way takes time and could allow those in office to bring about even more public harm before their removal.  The last method, God’s preferred way, takes much patience, trust and faith in God to do what He desires to do (more about that in the next chapter).

Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’ Ezekiel 33:11

Daniel Webster (1782-1852), author, lawyer and patriotic senator from Massachusetts, in his remarks to the U.S. Senate, June 3, 1834, said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it.”  For over two centuries American patriots have done much to fight for and defend that precious love of freedom.  The question is: Have Americans lost the will to fight for that which their forefathers were willing to spill their precious blood?

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government,” George Washington wrote for his first inaugural address on April 30, 1789, “are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

Two years prior to the Washington address, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adam’s wife, Abigail, on February 22, 1787 (Washington’s 55th birthday), wrote: “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.”

Although Jefferson believed wholeheartedly in constitutional law and constitutional government, he apparently also recognized the inherent weakness of man and his inability to stay the course of constitutional freedom.  He anticipated that sometime in the future the people might need to rise up once again if the people they elected strayed from constitutional authority and the will of the people.

[A] wise and frugal government . . . shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion,” Jefferson wrote on November 13, 1787, to William S. Smith, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from New York.  “The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.  The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure.” These were strong, but closely held beliefs of the one who authored America’s Declaration of Independence.

James Madison, known as the Father of the U.S. Constitution, said before the Virginia Ratifying Convention of June 16, 1788, that, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”  A few months before, Madison penned these words in Federalist No. 10 on November 23, 1787.   “[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.  James Madison, Federalist No. 62, February 27, 1788

John Hancock (1737-1793), the first governor of Massachusetts, whose bold signature was the first to grace the Declaration of Independence, said, “Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty [of] each individual. . . . Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”

General George Washington, after suffering a number of military defeats at the hands of the superior British forces in the first year of the Revolutionary War in 1777 and then enduring a bitter winter at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania with his meager force of 12,000, encouraged his men on May 2, 1778 with these words:  “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.”

In the previous year, Washington had seen his raw recruit force of 25,000 men decimated by the British.  Morale was low and his forces were weak and poorly prepared.  Yet, Washington had the foresight and fortitude to urge his men forward for the noble, patriotic cause of freedom from oppression and tyranny.

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.   Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), 40th President of the United States

In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in the blaspheme case of Updegraph v. the Commonwealth, the court offered this opinion, in part, of the role of Christianity in the well-being of the country.

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country. . . . Christianity is part of the common law of this State. It is not proclaimed by the commanding voice of any human superior, but expressed in the calm and mild accents of customary law. Its foundations are broad, and strong, and deep; they are laid in the authority, the interest, the affections of the people. Waiving all questions of hereafter, it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. . . .

While our own free Constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbours and of the country. These two privileges are directly opposed.

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), the 28th President of the United States once offered this observation. “Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance.”

We the People, Birth of a Nation

October 30, 2014

BookCoverPreview.WTP.2.2nd Ed

Just released a second addition (revised and expanded) of a an early American history book I published in 2005.  If you are an American history buff or just want to know the true history behind America’s start and the Founding Fathers, you will want a copy of We the People, Birth of a Nation, Second Edition for your very own library.  I guarantee you will not find another American history book like it anywhere.  It is now available on Amazon, but will soon be available at other online sites or through your local bookstore.  At 640 pages it is chock full of original documents and the words of the Founders.  It’s an easy read that you will enjoy and cherish as a family heirloom.

Are you tired of American history that has been revised and sanitized to be politically correct or reinterpreted to conform to present-day political or philosophical thinking? We the People: Birth of a Nation, from A Summary View of the Rights of British America, written by Thomas Jefferson, through the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution to President Washington’s Farewell Address, covers the most important period of America’s history.

Learn about the miraculous and providential underpinnings that established America as the most unique nation of free people in the history of the world. Read the actual documents and about their historical significance, as well as the thinking of those Founding Fathers who put them in force for the posterity of all Americans.

Each historical document had its place and importance and is presented in its entirety for your review. Each is preceded by an informative historical narrative to help the reader understand the importance and place each document plays in America’s history and form of government.

Birth of a Nation provides the reader with unique historical insight like no other American history text. It is an historical heirloom for every American.  Read history as it was meant to be read.

http://www.amazon.com/We-People-Birth-Nation-Edition/dp/1503022196/ref=sr_1_6_twi_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414672052&sr=8-6&keywords=james+f+gauss

The Prophetic Wisdom & Warnings of George Washington

October 22, 2014

(Excerpted, in part, from We the People: Birth of a Nation, 2nd Edition.  Available on Amazon.com and elsewhere starting October 30, 2014.)

George Washington, the first Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army—the forerunner of the U.S. military—and the first President of the United States of America, was a humble man of prayer and devout patriot. He was also a man of exceptional wisdom, discernment and vision.   Toward the end of his second term, Washington had Hamilton review the Madison draft of his farewell speech that he had intended to use at the end of his first term and make revisions. While Madison and Hamilton constructed the draft, it was Washington who carefully considered every word, every addition and deletion, before giving his approval.

Interestingly, it was never given orally by Washington but on September 19, 1796, it was published in the American Daily Advertizer in Philadelphia. Shortly thereafter The Independent Chronicle, the published voice of the New England Republicans, printed the address.

With much reluctance, Washington turned down the offer for a third term. Washington had longed for the privacy of his beloved Mount Vernon since the end of the war. Two weeks before he took the oath of office on April 30, 1789, he told his fellow citizens of Alexandria, Virginia, that “my love of retirement is so great, that no earthly consideration, short of conviction of duty, could have prevailed upon me to depart from my resolution ‘never more to take any share in transactions of a public nature.’” Even when his second presidential term ended in March, 1797, his retirement and return to Mount Vernon would be brief. In 1798, as war with France seemed to be on the near horizon, Washington accepted President John Adams’ urging to lead the American military once again. His call was short-lived as tensions eased and he was able to return to his Virginia estate.

Although, unlike many of his compatriot leaders, Washington lacked a formal and collegiate education, it did not hamper his keen insight and wisdom that shone forth in his voluminous correspondence. Notwithstanding Madison’s and Hamilton’s contributions, the address is clearly Washington in style and content. In the lengthy salute to America, he presents several personal convictions and concerns for the future of his beloved country.

Importance of unity and the dangers of factions and divisions. He was greatly concerned about the growing trend of individual wants at the expense of national unity. Personal freedom, Washington believed, could only continue to exist and prosper with the desire of all Americans to be united in the ongoing, uniquely American brand of freedom, for the benefit of the whole nation. Strong, misguided, individualism or regionalism—that erupted into the Civil War—could destroy the young nation.

Washington firmly believed that for the Union of states to survive, unity, not only among the nation’s leaders, but its people as well would be essential. . . . as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; he wrote, that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; [and] that the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it . . . and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

A man seasoned by a long military career and an extreme love of his country, Washington cherished the hard-won freedom and independence that was to be handed down to generations of Americans to come after him. But he was concerned about the real threat of factions and divisions in both politics and the people.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of  this truth; as  this  is  the  point  in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium [rarity] of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

Washington foresaw, that while the newly conceived U.S. Constitution had sufficient safeguards, that there would arise in the future those from both within the country and from outside the country that would seek to weaken the nation by a “divide and conquer” strategy if the populace was not watchful and committed to liberty, justice and prosperity for all, divesting themselves of self-interests. Whether Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections, he advocated. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.

Perhaps Washington did not foresee the degree of “multi-culturalism” America would embrace 200 years later, but he did fully understand that unless all residents of the nation, whether native-born or foreign-born, fully accepted the “land of the free” as their cherished home—culture, language, laws and morality—the nation would soon be torn asunder. This unity among people of different backgrounds and beliefs was essential, not only to the country’s safety and prosperity, but to its strength and protection against all enemies foreign and domestic. . . . While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves . . . . they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

Washington believed that Union should be the primary object of patriotic desire. Sadly, America today has never been so fractious and divided since the Civil war.  America has degenerated from a society of committed and unified freedom fighters and lovers to a “what’s in for me” society that appears willing to sacrifice true freedom at all costs as long as they can get something out of it.  As the venerable Benjamin Franklin once stated, He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

. . . there will always be reason, Washington wrote, to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

Dangers of the party system. Washington detested the fractious and partisan two party political system that he saw developing under his administration. He saw it as destructive and unhealthy for the country. The party system of government, he foresaw, had the potential to go beyond the normal political checks and balances and rip the power of self-government out of the hands of the citizens.

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, he penned, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. . . . This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. . . . The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution . . . till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

Washington undoubtedly would be horrified how the Constitution has been ripped apart by special interest groups and self-serving politicians over the years since his demise. It is no longer a Constitution of just laws for all, but only for those who no longer have the power and will to confront injustice and the powerful.  The two-party system he believed had the potential to tear the country apart.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

“Money talks” as they say and Washington understood that the propensity of human nature to lobby and seek favor with politicians had the destructive potential to subvert the Constitution and destroy the liberty and union he and so many other patriots fought and died for. Today, the majority of Congress no longer truly represents the will or desires of the people, but only of those who can grease the palms of special interests or finance re-election campaigns.  It seems that the typical politician is not in office to stand up for and serve the people, but is there to secure the permanency of his or her future. Party factions, Washington wrote, in the course of time and things, . . . become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

One method of assault on the Constitution he believed would be alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. It seems that with each succeeding generation of leaders in high places each one flirts with stretching the efficacy of the Constitution.  The current administration in the Whitehouse is no exception and, perhaps, has clearly and willfully violated the Constitution with every available opportunity.  With each constitutional violation, the nation and its people lose another chick of freedom and independence, and like the proverbial frog in a kettle of gradually heated water, does not perceive the danger until it is too late.

This [divisive party] spirit, Washington continued in his warning speech, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. . . . it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, Washington continued, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, . . . has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Has America not arrived at this point today?  According to Washington, it is up to the people—a wise and educated people—to rise up and discourage and restrain such abuse of servanthood.

[The party system] serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty, Washington noted. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Almost since the signing of the U.S. Constitution into law, partisan politics soon developed, starting with the Federalists and anti-Federalists. As the Democratic and Republican parties developed, sides became more permanently drawn and partisan politics has apparently reached its zenith with the current Congress and presidential administration, as over 380 bills passed by the House languish on the desk of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who refuses to introduce them before the Senate for debate.  Washington’s foresight, unfortunately, has come to full fruition.

Protecting the sanctity of the Constitution. To Washington and those who labored over the Constitution and to the majority of those in Congress, the Constitution represented the bedrock upon which all current and future law and liberty would depend. It was divinely inspired with God-given individual rights. It was not something to be whimsically changed by partisan politics or by legislative or judicial fiat. To do so would destroy its sanctity and strength. It was a document that was thoughtfully and prayerfully conceived that did and would forever provide the stable foundation upon which all American generations could stand with confidence and security.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.

. . . a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian.

. . . It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield (my emphasis).

Washington keenly realized that if the three branches of government—Executive, Legislative & Judicial—that the Founders so wisely set forth in the Constitution as distinct entities, with specific purposes and as a check and balance against each other, ever became co-mingled, with one usurping the role and responsibility of the other, it would result in real despotism. Have we not arrived at such a destiny as the Executive ignores the Legislative and makes, institutes and ignores whatever laws it desires?  And, as the Judicial selects what laws it chooses to enforce and modifies or changes those laws it does not like.  Truly, tyranny has arrived in the United States just as Washington feared and predicted.

Public and national debt. Washington was not opposed to indebtedness, but recommended that it should be used sparingly and only in times of national emergency. Whatever national debt that might be incurred “we ourselves ought to bear” it, Washington recommended, rather than pass it on to succeeding generations. When times of peace and prosperity returned, then that was the time to pay off the debt and not pile on more debt, thus increasing the burden for the next generation.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for    danger    frequently   prevent   much    greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

Unfortunately, America’s national debt situation is out of control and impossible to pay off as politician after politician votes to “kick the can” of debt control down the road year after year. The National Debt will exceed $18 trillion by year-end with “unfunded” liabilities at a staggering $124 trillion.  Yet, congressional and administration spending continues out-of-control with more and more spending bills being whisked through Congress or put into action by Executive Orders.  We continue to send billions abroad, even to our enemies, as jobs and American lifestyles plummet into the basement.  Washington, who received his education in the field of hard knocks, knew what he was talking about.  Too bad no one after him followed his advice.

Foreign relations and national defense. One of the greatest threats to the American style of life and freedom would be the outside adverse influence of non-Americans and foreign governments. Under his scrutiny, these influences would become the destructive “foes of republican government”, Washington believed. Permanent alliances with foreign powers, in Washington’s view, were inadvisable and potentially injurious to American sovereignty and freedom.  Although he was not an isolationist—he saw the need for world trade cooperation—he believed that long-term alliances would be detrimental and not in the enduring best interest of the country.  Foreign entanglements and the large military build-up that might result would be “particularly hostile to republican liberty,” he surmised. For Washington and his fellow patriots who had risked all for the sake of true freedom, they realized that God had blessed them with the formation of the most unique and workable form of government for a free and fully represented people that the world had ever known. To Washington and his like-minded patriots, it was worth protecting at all costs.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

. . . The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations,  to   have   with   them as little political connection as possible.

. . . It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world . . . .

. . . Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences . . . .

. . . Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.

When it came to foreign trade, Washington abhorred the idea that one nation would be treated any different than another. To create a “favored nation” status would only cultivate “a variety of evils” for America. As Washington continued his warnings in his farewell speech, he offered this prophetic advice:

. . . a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence . . . a free people ought to be constantly awake . . . that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. . . . Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests (my emphasis).

One of the biggest mistakes America and its politicians has ever made was granting China “favored nation” status under President Bill Clinton. It was virtually a one-sided deal that highly favored China and immediately resulted in a flow of American jobs, technology and manufacturing to China, allowing China to become the world’s strongest economy at the expense of the American worker and American family.  At the same time the American consumer fell in love with “cheap” goods flooding the U.S. market, oblivious to the realization that one day it would cost them their jobs, wages and standard of living.  A nation that cannot produce for itself and exports the production of goods and services abroad is destined for an inferior and declining economy.

The necessity of religion and morality in the citizens and the government. For historians and others who have concluded that Washington was not a man of God, their conclusions would seem to be fallacious and misguided. Washington considered religion and morality two of the “great pillars of human happiness.” Indeed, religion and morality were “indispensable supports” for political prosperity. In fact, in his view, any person that would seek to undermine these pillars could not be considered to be a patriot. If one subverted the religious foundation of the country, “Where,” asked Washington, “is the security for property, for reputation, for life . . .?” As for individual or national morality, he believed it could not be maintained in the absence of religious education and acted upon principles of faith. It was and would always be that religion and morality would be the foundation of a good and just government.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert  the oaths which are   the   instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government.

. . . Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.

It would be no great surprise to Washington if he were able to observe the state of affairs in America today. After all, he warned, without a foundation of biblical morality and virtue it would be impossible to have an effective and just government and society.  Without the strong and clear foundation of religion—and he meant Christianity—America would soon collapse into an immoral society lead by despotic leaders.

America, you have arrived. You were properly and prophetically warned by our nation’s finest leader.

ALSO READ this America in Prophecy book, Revelation 18 and the fate of America.

The American Revolution: The Beginning

March 12, 2012

Excerpted from We the People: Birth of a Nation

©2004 by James F. Gauss

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political

prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . .

And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality

can be maintained without religion . . .

Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national

morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.

George Washington

First President of the United States of America

On July 4, 1776, 56 very courageous and principled patriots of American freedom―who risked everything for the sake of future generations―signed one of the greatest documents in our country’s rather brief history, the Declaration of Independence. This cause for freedom was not taken lightly or without counting the cost, but was deliberated over a long series of town meetings throughout the thirteen colonies and in two Continental Congresses. Those gatherings of dedicated and fervent colonial patriots and opposition Loyalists were prayer-led, yet they often resulted in heated and angry debates and discussions over the desire of the majority to break away from the oppressive and taxing rule of the British crown. (more…)

We the People, Volume I & II

February 17, 2010

Laying the Foundation                  Birth of a Nation

 

We the People Accolades

 

Modern America has developed cultural amnesia, but the documents and speeches in We the People are a valuable resource for recovering our heritage and identity

Rev. Peter Marshall

Peter Marshall Ministries

 

At a time when the schools…have forgotten or deliberately obscured the true history of the United States, along comes We the People to remind us of the uniqueness of our founders’ inspiration.

Joseph Farah  

CEO/Editor, WorldNetDaily

 

I think Volume I is terrific and will make an important contribution to an understanding of America’s foundation.

Howard Phillips 

President, Conservative Caucus Foundation

 

Here is a book that literally speaks for itself…Valuable historical research that makes for refreshing and inspiring reading.

Dr. D. James Kennedy  

President, Coral Ridge Ministries

 

This is a book that should be on a shelf in every library and required reading for every young person of college age.

W. J. Rayment   

Conservativebookstore.com

 

Here one can find in one reference book those documents which were key to establishing our country’s principles and laws—find them as they were originally penned, not revised to suit present philosophy or political correctness.

Kathleen Carper   

President, SC Assn. of Indep. Home Schools

 

The book would be tremendously helpful for students and teachers.  It should be required reading in our schools, ‘should’ being the operative word.

Monty Rainey   

Chairman, The Junto Society

 

These are important documents that we hope will be treasured by all Americans.

Lynne Cheney

 

What an amazing and wonderful resource…This is a definite must have for every family…I can’t wait to get my hands on Volumes Two . . .

Diane McNett   

Books4Homeschool

 

In post-modern America, the need for teaching the foundations of our nation is greater than ever….A look at foundational documents is vital. 

…We the People, is a complete treasure house of those documents.

Susan Stewart

The California Parent Educator

 

[Volume II] is a superb compilation of historically significant documents which ought to be available to every citizen and especially to America’s young people.

Howard Phillips  

President, The Conservative Caucus, Inc.

Volume I, 2003 and Volume II, 2005 are available at Authorhouse.com or other online bookstores.

 

The Problem With the U.S. Constitution

April 21, 2009

Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.  John Adams

The problem with the Constitution of the United States of America is, indeed, that it was conceived and formulated by God-fearing men, who, while not perfect, had a high degree of morality and integrity.  They were men from diverse backgrounds, but statesmen who sought the common good for the common people.  They could not conceive of an America that would degenerate into an immoral and irreligious citizenry that would lust after the sinful nature of man. (more…)