“In the bloody history of the human pursuit of freedom, America stood alone as the only nation ever to entrust liberty to the individual over the authority of the state, relegating the state’s authority to the defense of the individual’s liberty. That trust has been rescinded and history may never be the same.
Read your Declaration of Independence today. See what you have lost. Then, as our fathers did, kneel before the sovereign God of the universe and seek his guidance in your life and nation.” – Talon
“If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” – God, 2 Chronicles 7:14
By Publius Huldah
July 18, 2012
We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789), and hence is qualified to be President:
Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress can define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.
Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.
Human Events claims that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.
Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present. After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]
“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]
But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!
The four writers don’t know what they are talking about. But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.
Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”. Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.
So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.
So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?
What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?
Read more here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah110.htm
If you watch this and are not moved to action you are likely a brain dead liberal
I could go into a diatribe of my view on liberty but I will save that for another day. Instead just a thought or two:
I haven’t been writing much here or elsewhere lately. Instead I have been engaged in debate on twitter for months on end. The liberty to express one’s view, including the challenge to defend those views can be invigorating, exhausting, and even educational. I have tirelessly battled the forces of social darkness and met, if you can call twitter “meeting,” lol, some wonderful people, including a few on the national conservative stage as well as others in the trenches, and a few who I think will be future conservative stars, especially in the new media, who have kept me encouraged to battle on. Which brings me to my thoughts…
I fully expect to battle the left on moral issues. I understand their animosity toward all things religious and moral. What challenges my patience are my fellow libertarians. It saddens me that so many do not recognize that liberty cannot exist without the restraint of God’s moral law. I specify “God’s” moral law even though ALL laws, as I often tell people, are the agreed to collective moral restraint of the people.
For one to think that we can disassociate from God’s law without suffering under the displacing weight of man’s law is fool hearty at best. The great John Adams said it so well when he penned these words,
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Which leads me to this final thought that I wish to leave with you…
“The nation that will not long tolerate the light restraint of God’s law will long endure the heavy restraint of man’s” – Yours Truly
May God’s grace lead you into all truth.
This week I ran across and reread Patrick Henry’s famous speech to The Virginia Convention. It is truly amazing to see how much of it is applicable today. There is no need to fight a foreign power today, but there is a need to stand up for truth and the important issues. It is so imperative that we speak truth despite what the consequences may be. Today we seek to win through mediums that were not used to as great an extent in the eighteenth century, yet they are important, nonetheless.
There are so many good points to Patrick Henry’s speech, but I found these to be the greatest to me:
First, Patrick Henry encourages us to be bold, clear and know the truth…whatever the cost. This is a good step in the right direction.
…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony…For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. And in proportion to the magnitude if the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country…for my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.
Second, look to the past. Not only recent occurrences, but historic events.
I have but one lamp by which feet are guided, and that is the lamp of the experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed by a kiss.
We are warned to not rely on hope; hope that may be false hope. And be prepared to fight for what is right.
…There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained- we must fight! I repeat it…we must fight!
Right now is the time to take action. Circumstances are not going to get better. We can fight and win because we are on the side of right!! The odds are against us, but as history has shown, even the strongest, best organized enemy has weaknesses. Strength can be a weakness if it does not have a right and just cause which drives it’s members on. And it is too late to stop to reconsider. We risk all regardless of whether we join the fray or not.
They tell us that we are weak- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year?…Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?…we are not weakened, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power…armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, we have no election; if we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest.
Today’s WFTW comes from a follow up exchange between myself and Kyle Becker who uses the monicker “rogueoperator” on both his site Rogue Government as well as on The Constitution Club. Becker is also a regular contributor at Conservative Daily News and I highly recommend getting to know his work.
The exchange was from the article “Franklin Schooled Paine In The “Age Of Reason”” that, along with posting here, I posted over at the Constitution Club. The article and any comments can be found here
Kyle gives us a reminder history lesson of the religious reality on the days leading up to the Revolution and beyond. While the majority of people held to some form of faith, and the majority of those held to some form of Christian faith, they were certainly not of one mind when it came to faith, yet as my source article eludes, the majority clearly held Paine’s words as assault on their individual faith.
I specifically chose this comment as a reminder to us all how far we have sank in our education system. Clearly Kyle took a personal interest in American History rather than just obligatory or else he would not have such knowledge, never the less, who of us know young people not far removed from college with an inkling of such history. This is why I argue local politics is far more important than national, for until we recover our youth, few will exit college is wise.
Read on and see…
It should be noted that the words expressed on either side of the issue of religion’s influence of government were written in the context of the day and our modern contexts can sometime skew our understanding of meanings of the day. While much was said to affirm that our founders collectively agreed that Government imposed religion was NOT in the interest of liberty (I recall there were an exception or two), they never the less often publicly practiced religion at levels that would make modern Christians seem timid.
The first two acts of the first Congress was public prayer and public bible reading. For the first 100 years church services were not only held in the capitol rotunda, they were sometimes held during sessions of Congress which would brake for services intended to seek wisdom for the issues being faced (attendance optional no doubt) and attended faithfully by early Presidents according to congressional records. These services were not shy in the using of the name Jesus Christ if David Barton is correct (have not researched it myself**). Congress further authorized printing of sermons for circulation to churches, Several Presidents proclaimed national days of fasting, on and on. Examples of things that now would be considered violations of church and state under the conjured definition or at minimum be mocked in our modern media.
Which brings us back to the perspective intent of the source article.
**When it comes to records from our founding, on line research is sketchy at best. Many records are simply not available on line and often commentaries are intended to skew the view of the reader by massaging facts (wikipedia etc) but this can occur from either side of the issue. One could argue the same of course for my article but I tried to keep commentary to a minimum and simply share the facts. The facts tell me there was a pro-Christianity mindset of the day that simply no longer exists today.
WFTW is a feature about wise or witty comments posted on blogs, videos, or anywhere I end up on the web. It is usually focused on comments rather than source articles / videos themselves. In most cases the source is also worthy of attention.
Since the humanist left tirelessly labors to indoctrinate us with the narrative that we were not founded as a Christian nation, (yes I’ve read the individual quotes by some founders), often worshiping at the alter of Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” as a major point of their argument, I thought I would share this alternative view of Paine’s most famous work. A view from those who were actually there.
Leading up to the release of Paine’s signature work he sent a manuscript to Benjamin Franklin for review. As you may recall, from his early essays under the monicker “Silence Dogood,” through his days owning the Philadelphia Gazette and authoring “Poor Richard’s Almanac,” Franklin perfected the skills that would later serve him and the nation well. His literary service to America and liberty itself arguably reached its apex while acting as Jefferson’s trusted editor of the Declaration of Independence. It was no doubt Franklin’s long history of reason (including his great respect for Vattel’s Law of Nations), his mastery of print, and involvement with the DOI, that drew Thomas Paine to seek his input on Paine’s new work.
This is where we will pick up Wallbuilders fully cited article focused on the letter Franklin returned with the manuscript to Paine. Note Franklin’s advice and the later results.
Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter 1 is Franklin’s response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.
TO THOMAS PAINE.
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine’s Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; 6 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine’s work. 7 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine’s work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” 8
When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine’s work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” 9 Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 10 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine’s attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” 11 In fact, Paine’s views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 12
It would seem Franklin’s “reason” proved superior to Paine’s in at least one regard as his warning of the consequence of insulting America’s commonly held view of God’s providential hand in our affairs would prove prophetic.
I found it interesting that the general populace, those lead by our founders through a recent war of independence, so rejected Paine that his estate could not find a respectable plot to bury him. It brings a new perspective of the chasm between the modern humanist narrative of American history, and the facts carved in history’s stone by those who were actually there.
Of course not everyone was Christian. No one in their right mind would make such a claim. But hey, that must mean they weren’t a Christian nation, right?
See Wallbuilders for cites