Articles Archives - Page 27 of 33

Benjamin Rush Dream about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

The Dream of Dr. Benjamin Rush & God’s Hand in Reconciling John Adams and Thomas JeffersonOne of the more bitter aspects of the retirement of John Adams from the presidency in 1800 was the fact that several of those with whom he had early co-labored during the Revolution had become his fervent adversaries. This was especially true in the case of Thomas Jefferson who, although serving closely with Adams during the Revolution, had become one of his chief enemies during President Washington’s administration. This feud not only deeply embittered Adams emotionally but it also troubled Dr. Rush, who was still a close friend of both Adams and Jefferson. In his concern over the relationship between these two, one night several months after Jefferson’s retirement from the Presidency in 1809, Dr. Rush had a dream about the two which he felt was important. On October 17, 1809, he wrote down an account of that dream and sent it to John Adams. In describing that dream, he related what he had seen:

“What book is that in your hands?” said I to my son Richard [who later became the Secretary of State under President James Monroe] a few nights ago in a dream. “It is the history of the United States,” said he. “Shall I read a page of it to you?” “No, no,” said I. “I believe in the truth of no history but in that which is contained in the Old and New Testaments.” “But, sir,” said my son, “this page relates to your friend Mr. Adams.” “Let me see it then,” said I. I read it with great pleasure and herewith send you a copy of it.
“1809. Among the most extraordinary events of this year was the renewal of the friendship and intercourse between Mr. John Adams and Mr. Jefferson, the two ex-Presidents of the United States. They met for the first time in the Congress of 1775. Their principles of liberty, their ardent attachment to their country. . . being exactly the same, they were strongly attracted to each other and became personal as well as political friends. . . . A difference of opinion upon the objects and issue of the French Revolution separated them during the years in which that great event interested and divided the American people. The predominance of the party which favored the French cause threw Mr. Adams out of the Chair of the United States in the year 1800 and placed Mr. Jefferson there in his stead. The former retired with resignation and dignity to his seat at Quincy, where he spent the evening of his life in literary and philosophical pursuits, surrounded by an amiable family and a few old and affectionate friends. The latter resigned the Chair of the United States in the year 1808, sick of the cares and disgusted with the intrigues of public life, and retired to his seat at Monticello, in Virginia, where he spent the remainder of his days in the cultivation of a large farm agreeably to the new system of husbandry. In the month of November 1809, Mr. Adams addressed a short letter to his friend Mr. Jefferson in which he congratulated him upon his escape to the shades of retirement and domestic happiness, and concluded it with assurances of his regard and good wishes for his welfare. This letter did great honor to Mr. Adams. It discovered a magnanimity known only to great minds. Mr. Jefferson replied to this letter and reciprocated expressions of regard and esteem. These letters were followed by a correspondence of several years in which they mutually reviewed the scenes of business in which they had been engaged, and candidly acknowledged to each other all the errors of opinion and conduct into which they had fallen during the time they filled the same station in the service of their country. Many precious aphorisms [truths], the result of observation, experience, and profound reflection, it is said, are contained in these letters. It is to be hoped the world will be favored with a sight of them. . . . These gentlemen sunk into the grave nearly at the same time, full of years and rich in the gratitude and praises of their country.”¹

At the time this letter was written, Jefferson and Adams were still vehement opponents. None of what was described in this letter had begun to come to pass, nor did it seem likely that it ever would. Nevertheless, Adams received the dream from his dear friend with an open heart and candidly responded:

Your prophecy, my dear friend, has not become history as yet. I have no resentment of animosity against the gentleman [Jefferson] and abhor the idea of blackening his character or transmitting him in odious colors to posterity. But I write with difficulty and am afraid of diffusing myself in too many correspondences. If I should receive a letter from him, however, I should not fail to acknowledge and answer it.² [To see the entire John Adams to Benjamin Rush letter click here.]

Shortly after this letter, Rush, who was also a dear friend of Jefferson, initiated a correspondence with Jefferson on the same topic, attempting to reconcile the two. Jefferson, too, listened to Rush with an open heart, and tentatively reached out to Adams with a gracious letter. Adams, as he had promised, did “not fail to acknowledge and answer the letter,” and thus began a cordial renewing of a warm and sincere friendship between the two.

In retrospect, the amazing accuracy and future fulfillment of several parts of Dr. Rush’s dream are absolutely astounding. As accurately described in his dream, Adams and Jefferson did again become close friends, and there did indeed follow the “correspondence of several years” described in the dream. Furthermore, the “world was favored with a sight of the letters” as entire volumes were eventually published which contained the letters written between those two in their latter years. Interestingly, seventeen years after his dream, they did “sink into the grave nearly at the same time” as the two men died within three hours of each other on the same day: July 4th, 1826 – the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence! Finally, both expired “full of years and rich in the gratitude of praises of their country.” It would appear that Providence had indeed given this dream to Dr. Rush since, although extremely unlikely at the time, it all eventually came to pass. (For similar Providential involvement in dreams, see Genesis 41:25+ and Daniel 2:28+).

In 1812, some three years after Dr. Rush had related his amazing dream to John Adams, Dr. Rush gratifyingly noted that a reconciliation between the two had begun:

I rejoice in the correspondence which has taken place between you and your old friend, Mr. Jefferson. I consider you and him as the North and South Poles of the American Revolution. Some talked, some wrote, and some fought to promote and establish it, but you and Mr. Jefferson thought for us all. I never take a retrospect of the years 1775 and 1776 without associating your opinions and speeches and conversations with all great political, moral, and intellectual achievements of the Congresses of those memorable years. ³

Shortly after this letter, Dr. Rush wrote with similar excitement to Jefferson, also expressing to him his pleasure over the rekindled friendship:

In a letter which I received a few days ago from Mr. Adams, he informs me, with a kind of exultation, that after a correspondence of five or six and thirty years had been interrupted by various causes, it had been renewed, and that four letters had passed between you and him. In speaking of your letters, he says, “They are written with all the elegance, purity, and sweetness of style of his youth and middle age, and with (what I envy more) a firmness of finger and steadiness of chirography [handwriting] that to me are lost forever.” It will give me pleasure as long as I live to reflect that I [Dr. Rush] have been in any degree instrumental in effecting this reunion of two souls destined to be dear to each other and animated with the same dispositions to serve their country (though in different ways) at the expense of innumerable sacrifices of domestic ease, personal interest, and private friendships. Posterity will do you both justice for this act. If Mr. Adams’ letters to you are written in the same elevated and nervous style [at that time, the word “nervous” was defined as “possessing or manifesting vigor of mind; characterized by strength in sentiment or style”], both as to matter and language, that his letters are which he now and then addresses to me, I am sure you will be delighted with his correspondence. Some of his thoughts electrify me. I view him as a mountain with its head clear and reflecting the beams of the sun, while all below it is frost and snow. ⁴

On the death of Adams and Jefferson on the very same day, some 17 years after Benjamin Rush has seen that event in his dream, the Rev. Edward Everett (a U. S. Representative & Senator, Governor, Diplomat, Secretary of State, and President of Harvard) delivered an oration in remembrance of the two in which he noted the great impact on America of their dual influence, both before and after their reconciliation:

Having lived and acted and counseled and dared and risked all, and triumphed and enjoyed together, they have gone together to their great reward. . . . Forgetting the little that had divided them and cherishing the communion of service and peril and success which had united, they walked with honorable friendship the declining pathway of age; and now they have sunk down together in peace into the bosom of a redeemed and grateful country. . . . They were useful, honored, prosperous, and lovely in their lives, and in their deaths they were not divided. ⁵

Endnotes

¹ L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: The American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. II, pp. 1021-1022, to John Adams on October 17, 1809.

² From a handwritten letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, dated from Quincy [Massachusetts], December 21, 1809, in possession of the author.

³ Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: The American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. II, p. 1127, to John Adams on February 17, 1812.

⁴ Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: The American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. II, pp. 1127-1128, to Thomas Jefferson on February [i.e., March] 3, 1812. Letter was actually received on March 19, 1812.

⁵ Edward Everett, An Address Delivered at Charlestown, August 1, 1826, in Commemoration of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (Boston: William L. Lewis, 1826), pp. 8-9.

A Christian Voter Intimidation Letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State.Numerous militant secular groups want to see people of faith and churches silenced and kept from exercising any influence in the public sphere, even if that influence is legal and constitutionally permissible. One such group is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It seems that each election cycle, they send out an ominous letter to pastors and churches, warning them that they can face legal problems for something as innocuous as providing a non-partisan voters guide to their parishioners.

People of faith should not rely on such agenda-driven adversarial secularist groups for advice on what they can do in relation to elections; they should instead rely on neutral and even supportive groups to help navigate these relatively simple waters. For example, the IRS has issued a very easy-to-understand letter of guidance (link to this letter provided here) explaining what churches and non-profit organizations can do at election time, and a number of national legal groups which specialize in this area have provided even easier-to-understand letters of guidance (link also provided here).

Just to illustrate how straightforward and uncomplicated this issue really is, we have taken the threatening letter sent by Americans United for Separation of Church and State to pastors in 2006 and have crossed out their editorial comments designed to intimidate pastors and churches, leaving intact the actual legal guidance which is confirmed by the IRS and supportive attorneys; as you can see, the difference is stark! Don’t be intimidated! Maximize your constitutional influence by obtaining and following the clear guidelines provided by legal groups that specialize in helping people of faith.

Futile Intimidation Attempts

February 6, 2008

Greetings!

On February 5, 2008, nearly two dozen states made their voice heard in the presidential primaries. To help equip Christian voters to fulfill their role during the election season, WallBuilders produced a Voters’ Guide that was distributed to millions of homes.

That Voters’ Guide proved to be a great threat to anti-Biblical secularists. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State therefore filed an official complaint requesting that the IRS investigate both WallBuilders and the American Family Association (then headed by Don Wildmon) for distributing that Voters’ Guide.

We had absolutely no intention of backing down or altering our message, nor would we allow ourselves to be intimidated. Benjamin Franklin observed, “Make yourself sheep, and the wolves will eat you,” and Thomas Jefferson wisely advised, “In matters of principle, stand like a rock!” WallBuilders is determined to never be intimidated from exercising our constitutional rights and encouraging other Christians to do so.

Because the real intent of the secularists was to keep Christians out of the civil arena, the Rev. Barry Lynn (head of Americans United), warned that “Any church that distributes these biased guides is risking its tax exemption and casting aside its integrity.” He was dead wrong. The Voters’ Guide was reviewed by numerous constitutional attorneys before it was released.

Some often marvel that the head of such a secularist group as AU goes by the title of “Reverend,” yet Barry Lynn is indeed an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ (the same denomination of which Barack Obama is a member) – considered the most liberal (and fastest declining) of all American denominations.

The UCC was the first denomination to ordain an openly gay minister in the early 1970s, and to call for recognition of homosexual marriages; and over 200 of its churches are led by openly homosexual ministers. The UCC is also a strong advocate of abortion and openly endorsed abortion a full two years before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court abortion decision in 1973. They even opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions.

The UCC does not accept fixed absolutes from the Bible, but instead believes that the Bible should be defined by the current culture and context. You can certainly understand why individuals with this worldview would not want Christians to vote Biblically.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Dante, The Inferno (circa 1315 A.D.)Thank you for being involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution?

God bless!

David Barton

The 2010 Election: The News Inside the News

David BartonTraditional media coverage on Election Night provided a general overview of the most obvious political shifts but largely ignored the massive pro-life, pro-family, and conservative gains that occurred. This report will provide a general summary of the elections and will also report many results of particular interest to God-fearing conservative voters.

Federal Election Results: An Historic Shift

On the surface, Republicans did well, gaining more U. S. House seats than in any election for the past 72 years:¹

In 1938, Republicans picked up 80 seats in the House
In 1946, 56 seats
In 1966, 47
In 1994, 54

Republicans gained 63 seats – the most since 1938. But it would be a mistake to assume that voters simply chose Republicans in this election. To the contrary, like the four previous landmark elections cited above, voters decisively chose to reject the liberalism exuded by national Democrat leaders; Republicans were simply the beneficiaries:

In 1938, following six years of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” expansionism, voters overwhelmingly rejected further growth of the federal government.
In 1946, they rejected the revival of the “New Deal” under President Harry Truman.
In 1966, following three years of President Johnson’s “Great Society” federal growth, voters halted any further expansion of government.
In 1994, they put a stop to President Bill Clinton’s attempt to expand the federal government through “Hillarycare,” also ending his radical social agenda (e.g., lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military, protecting partial-birth abortions, etc.).

Election 2010 was a similar voter repudiation of the explosive growth of federal government under national Democrat leaders (i.e., the takeover of health care and student loans, government bailouts of private businesses, “stimulus” spending bills, etc.); it was also a resounding affirmation of limited government and conservatism, both economic and social.

While some national pundits argued that the Republican victories were the result of an “enthusiasm gap” (that is, Republican voters were highly motivated to go to the polls but Democrat voters were not), such was definitely not the case. In this election, the numbers of voters from each side was exactly equal: 35% of voters were Republican, and 35% were Democrat.² (In recent elections, the comparative percentage of Democrat and Republican voters has remained relatively close.³) The difference in this election was not a greater turnout of Republicans or a suppressed turnout of Democrats but rather that non-affiliated independent voters overwhelmingly chose conservative candidates (running primarily as Republicans) and rejected liberal ones (represented primarily by Democrats)⁴ – a 37-point swing in their decision from only four years ago.⁵

Some additional interesting election statistics:

In every state in the nation, self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals; and in 25 of the states, conservatives outnumbered liberals 2 to 1.⁶
Overall, 42% of voters self-identified as conservative, and 20% as liberal⁷– a 22% gap. (In 2006 and 2008, it was only a 12% gap.⁸)
Tea Party supporters made up 41% of voters.⁹
Voter turnout was slightly higher in 2010 than in 2006, projected at 42% in this election (i.e., 90 million), which is 6.2 million more than voted in 2006 in the last mid-term election (83.8 million).¹⁰ (Mid-term elections are always smaller in turnout than presidential elections, so comparisons are best made of mid-term to mid-term, and presidential to presidential.)
Voter turnout increased in nine states, especially Florida, Minnesota, and Texas, but decreased in other states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Given the conservative nature of voters this election, it is not surprising that the average new freshman in the House and Senate is more conservative than the Member he replaced. In fact, in several states not traditionally conservative, numerous congressional seats switched from liberal to conservative, including Republicans gaining 6 congressional seats in New York; 5 each in Pennsylvania and Ohio; 3 in Illinois; and 2 each in Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin. They even gained ground in traditionally conservative states, including 4 more seats in Florida; 3 each in Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas; and 2 each in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, and New Hampshire. By the way, in traditionally liberal Wisconsin, not only did liberals lose 2 congressional seats, they also lost a U. S. Senate Seat, the Governorship, the State Senate, and the State House – the only state to lose control of so many levels of government in this election.

While the changes toward conservatism were substantial, nearly all of the national news coverage focused only on fiscal conservatism; but statistics affirm that the election was also about social conservatism. For example, exit polling showed that among conservative voters:

When asked what was needed to get America back on track, reducing spending and restoring values were equally important.¹¹
A majority of voters said members of Congress and political leaders are ignoring our religious heritage.¹²
53% of the voters opposed homosexual marriage.¹³
Christian conservatives comprised 28.8 million, or 32% of all voters¹⁴– the highest recorded percentage of any election.¹⁵

Furthermore:

30% of all voters said that the abortion issue affected their vote; 22% said they voted for pro-life candidates, and 8% for pro-abortion candidates, thus providing pro-life candidates a 14-point advantage over abortion voters.¹⁶ That large advantage provided the margin of victory for pro-life candidates in many otherwise close races.

Interestingly, exit polling has long demonstrated that the frequency of church attendance is the best indicator of whether an individual will vote conservative or liberal. As Washington Post writer Thomas Edsall had reported: “Pollsters are finding that one of the best ways to discover whether a voter holds liberal or conservative value stands is to ask: How often do you go to church? Those who go often tend to be Republican, those who go rarely or not at all tend to be Democrat.”¹⁷ In 2010, that tendency was again reaffirmed:

Among Born-Again or Evangelical voters, 77% voted for Republicans – up 7% from four years ago.¹⁸
White Protestants voted for Republicans over Democrats by a 69% to 28% margin – up 8% from four years ago.¹⁹
White Catholics voted for Republicans over Democrats by a 59% to 39% margin – up 10% from four years ago;²⁰ and among all Catholic voters, 54% voted for Republicans, an increase of 12% from two years ago.²¹

But on the other hand:

Those who have no religious affiliation supported Democrats over Republicans by a 68% to 30% margin (although this is an 8% improvement from four years ago).²²

Exit polling from this year’s election makes clear that conservative people of faith carried their values with them into the voting booth – something that they did not do two years ago in 2008 (as will be seen below).

Another disappointing number from two years ago was that only 14% of churches provided voter guides or urged parishioners to vote, compared to 27% in 2006. In 2008, WallBuilders created a website (www.ChristianVoterGuide.com and www.Judeo-ChristianVoterGuide.com) in order to make conservative, pro-family state voter guides available to voters in every state. This year, a mailing was sent to 285,000 of the 325,000 houses of worship in America, urging pastors, rabbis, and priests to get voter guides from those websites and distribute them to their congregations or synagogue, resulting in more than 140,000 website hits from that mailing.

Because values mattered to voters, there was more cohesion between economic and social conservatives than in recent elections. Consequently, nearly all the conservative candidates who won this year were not only economic but also social conservatives.

For example, in the U. S. Senate, 16 new freshmen were elected: 3 Democrats and 13 Republicans. (The 3 Democrats all replaced Democrats, and 7 of the 13 Republicans replaced Republicans, with the other 6 replacing Democrats). Of the 13 freshmen Republican Senators, 12 are conservative and pro-life (Mark Kirk of Illinois is not); and of the 3 Democrat freshmen, 1 is pro-life. Thus, 13 of the 16 new Senators are pro-life – an 81% pro-life class. (Compare this year’s freshman Senate class with that of 2008, which was only 14% pro-life.)

Similarly, of the 97 new freshmen in the U. S. House, 81 are pro-life – an 84% pro-life class. In fact, this election resulted in a net gain of 52 pro-life seats in the House! (Of the 97 freshmen, 33 seats showed no change, with 26 pro-life freshman replacing pro-life predecessors, and 7 pro-abortion freshmen replacing the same. There were 3 seats where a pro-abortion freshman replaced a pro-life predecessor, 40 seats where a pro-life freshman replaced a pro-abortion predecessor, an additional 15 seats where a solid pro-life freshman replaced a predecessor with a mixed pro-life voting record, and 6 where the pro-life positions of the freshman are unknown.)²³ As a result of the election, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, announced that “January will mark the beginning of the arguably most pro-life House ever.”²⁴ (Compare this year’s freshman House class with that of 2008, which was only 40% pro-life.)

While voters overwhelmingly chose pro-life candidates in this election, apparently, Democrats became increasingly less tolerant of pro-lifers in their own ranks. For example, Democrats for Life raised only $7,989 and gave only $7,309 to 14 candidates,²⁵ while the Republican National Coalition for Life raised almost ten-times as much ($67,152), and gave $77,045 to 60 candidates.²⁶ And in states such as Hawaii, during the Democrat primary in September, most pro-life Democrat incumbents were defeated and replaced with a pro-abortion Democrat. But outside of Democrat-only circles, the general population did elect some proven conservative pro-life Democrats, including Congressmen Mike McIntyre and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.

(By the way, non-liberal Democrats appear to be a shrinking group. Before the election, there were 54 Democrats in the Blue Dog Caucus, which is composed of conservative to moderate Democrat House Members. Only 26 from that group were re-elected.)²⁷

Some other interesting facts about the new Republican freshman class:

2 black Republicans were elected to positions never before held by any black representative. There are 6 new Latino Republicans in Congress (5 in the House, 1 in the Senate), and 9 new female Republicans (8 in the House, and 1 in the Senate). All of these new freshmen are pro-life; and the addition of these new women increases by 60% the number of pro-life women in the U. S. House.
8 freshmen are military veterans, most of whom served in Iraq and Afghanistan.²⁸ They all support victory on the battlefield in both countries and also hold a very strong national security position.²⁹ These 8 more than double the number of like-minded War on Terror veterans already serving in Congress and will form the new Victory Caucus. Significantly, however, every War on Terror veteran who ran as a challenger and who held an anti-war position was defeated, as were 2 incumbent anti-war Iraqi war veterans.³⁰
All of the new Republican Latino members ran on the Arizona-style immigration position that the media and liberals so denounce – that is, securing the borders, enforcing existing laws, controlling immigration, and opposing amnesty.
The new freshman class is very strongly pro-Israel, replacing many incumbents who were openly critical of Israel.
3 of the new Republican Senate Freshmen (Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson) are openly and unabashedly pro-American Exceptionalism, boldly advocating Americanism, God-given unalienable rights, the Free Market, and constitutionalism.

And finally, there is the Congressional Prayer Caucus. Most citizens are unaware that every week Congress is in session, as votes begin, dozens of congressional Members meet in Room 219 of the Capitol (directly across from the House Chamber) to join together in extended prayer for the country. The Prayer Caucus has been bold in defending religious liberties and public religious expressions, including at the Washington Monument, the Capitol Visitor Center, veterans’ funeral ceremonies, and many other areas where officials had ordered the removal of public acknowledgments of God. (To see something of their admirable work, www.CPCFoundation.com.) Significantly, of the 62 Members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus running for re-election, 61 were returned – a percentage much, much higher than the House at large.

State Election Results

Clearly, the federal election results went heavily in favor of conservatives (and Republicans), but the state level results were even more dramatically pointed in that direction.

There are a total of 99 State legislative chambers (Nebraska has a unicameral government with only one chamber). As the 2010 election began, the balance of power in 25 of those chambers was such that it could change hands. When Election Night ended, Republicans lost control of no chambers but Democrats lost control of 20.

Heading into Election Day, Democrats held 783 more state legislative seats than Republicans, but when the night ended, Republicans held a 523 seat advantage.³¹ Republicans gained 690 state legislative seats (with several still undecided).³² They not only gained 134 seats in New Hampshire, 41 in Minnesota, 28 in Maine, etc., but they also made massive gains even in chambers where they already held control. For example, Republicans held a slim 77 to 73 majority in the Texas State House, but on Election Night jumped to a 99 to 51 majority. And in Tennessee, the State House went from a 2 seat majority to a 31 seat supermajority. Amazingly, Republicans lost seats in only 5 of the 99 legislative chambers (the Senates of Hawaii, Mississippi, Maryland, and Massachusetts, and the House in Delaware; Republicans were already in the minority in all 5 states).

Republicans currently control both chambers in 25 states, and one chamber in 6 more states. They have not controlled this many legislatures since 1928.³³

And just as a number of state legislative chambers changed control, so too did a number of Governors’ Mansions: 15 switched hands, 11 to Republican, 3 to Democrat, and 1 to Independent (one is still undecided). Republican governors currently outnumber Democrat governors by a margin of 29 to 19, with 1 Independent.

Republicans now hold a trifecta (that is, they control the state house, senate, and governorship) in 20 states, while Democrats hold a trifecta in only 11. Several of these new trifectas are historic. For example, the last time Republicans controlled Alabama government, Robert E. Lee was still alive. (Since the election, thirteen Democrat legislators have switched to Republican in states including Alabama, Georgia, Maine, South Dakota, and Louisiana; expect this pattern to be repeated in other states as conservative Democrats feel less and less at home in the Democrat Party.) Minnesota government had never been under Republican control before this election, and North Carolina is now in Republican control for the first time since 1870.

As an interesting aside, the Louisiana House also flipped to Republican control as a result of this year’s election, even though there were no state legislative races in Louisiana. (Louisiana is one of five states, along with Mississippi, Kentucky, Virginia, and New Jersey that hold state elections in the years between federal elections.) Nevertheless, following the nationwide conservative tsunami, a Democrat State House member announced that he was changing parties, thus giving Republicans control of that chamber for the first time since Reconstruction.

State Effects on the Federal Congress

State legislative results have a direct effect on the composition of the federal Congress through the process of decennial redistricting – a process required by the Constitution in Art. 1, Sec. 2, Par. 3. Every ten years, a census is conducted to determine the national population, and the total population is then divided by 435 (the number of Members in the House) to determine the number of citizens in each congressional district. Once that number is ascertained, new congressional lines are drawn and elections are held. In this case, the census was conducted in 2010; state legislatures will redraw lines in 2011; and congressional elections under the new lines will be held in 2012, and those lines will remain in place for the next decade.

Because state legislatures draw the lines in most states, the party that controls the legislature will draw the lines in a manner more favorable to their party. Thus, states like New York make it easier for Democrats to be elected, and states like Texas make it easier for Republicans to be elected. However, redrawing lines becomes especially significant when the population has shifted in such a manner that a state either gains or loses a congressional seat.

Over the past decade, millions of citizens in the north have moved toward the south where the economy is much better. As a result, Texas is gaining 4 congressional seats and Florida 2; Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Washington, and Utah will each gain 1. Since most of those states are controlled by Republicans, it is likely that lines will be drawn to make it easier to elect Republicans to Congress in these new districts. States losing a congressional seat include Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, and New York and Ohio will lose 2 seats. Since most of the seats to be eliminated are currently held by Democrats, it is likely that Democrat numbers in Congress will be reduced.

As a result of the state legislative changes on election night, the redistricting process could result in a 20-25 seat federal congressional gain for Republicans – a gain that could last for the next decade.

State Judicial Races

Just as conservatives gained control of state legislatures and governorships, they also re-gained control of judiciaries in Alabama, Michigan, North Carolina, Texas, and other states.

One of the most dramatic wins of the night (and one of my personal favorites) was in Iowa, where 3 of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who handed down a 2009 decision to allow same-sex marriage were turned out of office by the voters. This is the first time in the nearly fifty year history of judicial retention elections in Iowa that any Supreme Court justice was defeated, and in this case, all 3 that appeared on the ballot were defeated.

Significantly, the removal of any judge in a retention election is so rare (99% of all state judges facing retention elections are retained³⁴) that their positions are essentially lifetime appointments. The removal of these liberal judges sent shockwaves throughout the judiciary across the nation, delivering a clear message that voters can and will hold judges accountable if they abandon their traditional role and instead try to become judicial legislators. (To see something of the story behind this remarkable victory, go to DallasBlog.com and read the article by Dr. Richard G. Lee on “Behind the Fall of Iowa’s Judicial Gods.”³⁵)

State Ballot Initiatives

With very few exceptions, voters across the nation expressed conservative positions in their decisions on 160 ballot initiatives in 37 states. For example:

Oklahoma said that their judges must base their rulings on federal and state law, not international or Sharia law. (However, an Islamic group has already filed suit against the measure, and a federal judge has granted a temporary injunction in their favor.)
Arizona and Oklahoma joined Missouri in allowing their citizens to say “no” to federal health care.
Arkansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee approved a constitutional right to hunt, thus pushing back against liberal animal rights groups.
California rejected the legalization of marijuana, and Oregon and South Dakota rejected medical marijuana.
Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah passed constitutional amendments to protect the right to secret ballots in union elections, pushing back against President Obama’s promise to allow workers to unionize without a secret ballot.
Washington rejected a state income tax.
Indiana placed a cap on property taxes.
Kansas passed a constitutional amendment securing the right of citizens to bear arms.
Missouri and Montana voted to prohibit new taxes on the sale of property (i.e., no capital gains taxes on property).
California and Washington passed measures making it harder to tax citizens by requiring a legislative supermajority to approve a new tax.
Missouri passed a measure that allows citizens to decide on the taxes on their earnings.
Nevada rejected a measure to allow lawmakers to change taxes without a vote of the people.
Rhode Island overwhelmingly rejected a name change for its state. (This was the second of my personal favorites of the night. The official title of Rhode Island is “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” given when the two colonies merged in 1663. Liberal legislators asserted that the use of “plantation” was a racist term, despite the fact that Rhode Island’s Governor Stephen Hopkins – a Founding Father and signer of the Declaration – signed America’s first anti-slavery law; and the colony’s founder Roger Williams had excellent relations with American Indians. Rhode Island was long a model of early American justice and civil rights; and citizens overwhelmingly rejected – by a 78% to 22% margin – the liberal attempt to rewrite their state’s history!)

A Few State Disappointments

Despite the numerous conservative victories in states across the nation, there were a few underperforming states, including Arizona, Colorado, Washington, California, and Hawaii. For example, in Arizona, many of the congressional seats that were expected to change hands from liberal to conservative failed to do so, and the state also passed a measure legalizing medical marijuana. Colorado experienced similar statewide underperformance, and their initiative on the unborn failed by a large margin (it was the only pro-life initiative in the nation this year). This is not to say that some conservative gains were not made in most of those states; they were; it is just that they were not nearly as broad as in other states. (By the way, as noted earlier, Hawaii was one of only a handful of states in which conservatives and Republicans actually lost ground. As a result, the current composition of Hawaii’s 25 member state senate is now 24 Democrats and 1 Republican. What a lonely senator!)

A few of the disappointments included:

Colorado did not opt out of federal health care mandates, pass tax limitation amendments, approve the personhood amendment, or prohibit the increase of state debt through loans.
Massachusetts did not reduce state sales tax from 6.25% to 3%.
Arizona passed medical marijuana, and did not protect the right to hunt and fish.
Maine narrowly allowed a casino (but opponents have announced a call for a recount).
California did not suspend the “Global Warming Act.”
Washington voted to allow the state to run its own liquor stores.

Yet notwithstanding these few losses, Election Day was an overwhelming success for God-fearing conservatives, both social and fiscal.

An Interesting Side Note – “Hollywood Stays Home”

Compared to the presidential election of 2008, Hollywood stars stayed out of this election. According to Stephen Zunes, a professor at the University of San Francisco, the Obama administration has not been living up to Hollywood expectations. As he explains, “The more left-wing of the celebrities feel that Obama and the Democrat Congress haven’t been liberal enough (i.e., still in Iraq, escalating in Afghanistan, no single-payer health care (or even public option), no climate legislation, etc.) and are therefore part of the ‘enthusiasm gap’.”³⁶

A Big Loser

Liberals and Democrats were the election’s biggest collective loser, but perhaps the biggest individual loser was George Soros.

Soros is the secularist billionaire who has invested so heavily into severing America from its traditional religious, moral, and constitutional foundations. He has been tactically brilliant, advancing his dangerous agenda through scores of well-coordinated but seemingly unconnected groups, gaining control over numerous powerful but relatively unglamorous political positions that exercise tremendous influence over the direction of the states and thus the nation.

Considered one of the most powerful men on earth, Soros has sought to further his secularist, progressive, socialist agenda by distributing (so far) more than $5 billion through numerous allied groups (e.g., Open Society Institute, Tides Foundation, ACLU, America Coming Together, Media Matters, America Votes, Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, etc.). Soros unabashedly opposes free market economics, the American military, and our constitutional form of government; seeks a massive expansion of government, including welfare programs, socialized medicine, and amnesty for illegal aliens; supports the elimination of all prisons and the release of all inmates; supports abortion and opposes traditional marriage and all forms of traditional morality; supports anti-American Arab groups and defends anti-American terrorists; opposes tax cuts of any type; opposes American sovereignty and supports complete globalism; promotes radical environmentalism; supports unilateral disarmament and the placing of American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations and the placing of American criminal policy under the control of the World Court; etc.³⁷

Much of Soros’ effort to fundamentally transform America has occurred at the state level by seeking to place his like-minded operatives into the more unglamorous but nevertheless influential political positions of state judges and secretaries of state, and he also works heavily for the passage of specific state ballot initiatives. Soros had experienced almost unbridled success in recent elections, but in 2010, his agenda became one of the biggest election losers.

For example, he has already spent over $45 million³⁸ to “remake the judiciary and fundamentally change the way judges are selected.”³⁹ His plan is to move state judges as far away from voters as possible, having judges chosen instead by groups of elitist lawyers appointed by the governor or some other state official.⁴⁰ After being appointed, the judges only have to face the voters in periodic retention elections – a plan that, as noted above, amounts essentially to a lifetime appointment.⁴¹ Soros wants judges to be unaccountable to, and independent from citizens – much in the same way that federal judges in recent decades have also wrongly become independent and unaccountable. But not only did Soros suffer a setback with the Iowa judges being turned out, but in Nevada, the Soros-backed initiative on appointing rather than electing judges was overwhelmingly rejected by a 57% to 42% margin.⁴²

(By the way, other Soros-supported ballot initiatives that lost on Election Night included California’s plan to legalize marijuana, and its plan to keep redistricting in the hands of the extremely liberal Democrat state legislature rather than in the hands of a citizens’ commission.⁴³ Gratefully, several Soros-backed measures went down at the hands of the people.)

In addition to Soros’ judicial activities, another area in which he is heavily involved is his “Secretary of State Project,”⁴⁴ which is his effort “to elect Secretaries of State around the country willing to impose Democrat-friendly election laws in an attempt to tilt the playing field in their favor on Election Day.”⁴⁵ Soros clearly understands the axiom delivered long ago by Communist leader Joseph Stalin, who declared: “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”⁴⁶

Consider how Soros’ involvement with secretaries of states impacted the 2008 U. S. Senate race between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman. The Secretary of State who oversaw the recount was Mark Ritchie, a Soros-backed official. Ritchie was so overtly partisan during the recount that even national newspapers questioned the integrity of the recount process, noting that almost all of the voting “errors” that Ritchie “discovered” in the state went in Franken’s favor.⁴⁷ As the Wall Street Journal reported:

Mr. Franken’s gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota Congressional races. . . . Mr. Franken’s “new” votes equal more than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined.⁴⁸

Soros’ “Secretary of State Project” was undertaken to “tilt the playing field in the Democrats’ direction,” and Soros’ Mark Ritchie certainly did that.

Another example is Soros-backed Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buescher. When the attempt was made to place a pro-life personhood initiative on the ballot this election, Buescher unilaterally changed the normal rules of engagement, actually shortening the normal time allotted to collect signatures for that measure, thus making it much more difficult to get it before the people.⁴⁹

It is clear why Soros has focused so much money on gaining the positions of secretaries of state (as well as of judges and ballot initiatives): they have significant impact in moving forward a secular progressive agenda with less interference from the people. Nevertheless, despite Soros’ efforts, 17 of the 26 secretaries of state up for election this year were won by Republicans;⁵⁰ and several Soros-backed candidates lost or were voted out of office.

Thankfully, at the level of state judges, secretaries of state, and state ballot initiatives, George Soros’ anti-American agenda was one of the biggest losers on Election Night!

Some Other Pro-Family Victories

The biggest winner on Election Night was definitely America’s conservative pro-family voter. And in addition to the numerous gains already mentioned (e.g., in the federal Congress, state legislatures, and ballot initiatives), there were also many other momentous pro-family victories that night.

For example, last year in 2009, Maine legislators passed and the governor signed a gay marriage law, but citizens objected and mounted a drive to place the issue on the ballot. The necessary signatures were gathered, and in November 2009, citizens vetoed the gay marriage law passed by the legislature. In this election, voters continued to make their voice heard on this issue, replacing 22 of the legislators who had voted for same-sex marriage last year with 22 who supported traditional marriage; they also elected a new governor who supports traditional marriage. With this change, traditional marriage in Maine is now safe for the foreseeable future.

Similarly, New Hampshire passed a gay marriage law in early 2010; but this election likewise removed dozens of legislators who had supported the law (recall that an amazing 134 seats changed hands), placing both the House and the Senate into the hands of conservative Republicans. Plans are currently underway to secure a vote on a constitutional amendment to permanently ban homosexual marriage.

In Minnesota, the new Republican controlled house and senate now ensure that a homosexual marriage initiative will not make it through that legislature.

In El Paso, Texas, city leaders had given medical benefits to gay partners of city employees, but voters rolled back that policy by a 55% to 45% margin.⁵¹

And because of the gains in Missouri, of the 34 members of the state senate, 29 are now pro-life; and of the 163 members of the state house, at least 126 are now pro-life, thus making Missouri a rock-solid, pro-life, veto-proof legislature.

— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —Reviewing this year’s election results makes it seem as if citizens had taken their marching orders from President Ronald Reagan’s speech of March 8, 1985, in which he declared:

I said, “This is a wonderful time to be alive,” and I meant that. I meant that we’re lucky not to live in pale and timid times. We’ve been blessed with the opportunity to stand for something – for liberty and freedom and fairness. And these are things worth fighting for – worth devoting our lives to. And we have good reason to be hopeful and optimistic. We’ve made much progress already. So, let us go forth with good cheer and stout hearts – happy warriors out to seize back a country and a world to freedom.

Voters this year did indeed seem to be happy warriors, taking back their country to freedom.

But as voters, we have to remember that this election was not an event – it was only a single step in a lifelong process of involvement and civic engagement, requiring us not only to be involved in every election but also to always carry our conservative religious, moral, and constitutional values with us as we vote (and we must also stay actively involved between elections). To use President Reagan’s phrase, “we’ve made much progress”; but really we have only just begun. So let’s stay engaged and finish the job, no matter what happens or how long it takes.

God bless!

David Barton

Endnotes

¹ “The Four-Year Majority,” Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2010 (at: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590871101994524.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1).

² “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2010,” CNN.com (at: https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1) (accessed on November 19, 2010).

³ See “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2006,“ CNN.com (at:
https://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html);
“CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2008,” CNN.com (at:
https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1).

⁴ In 2010, 37% of Independents voted Democrat and 56% voted Republican. See “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2010,” CNN.com (at: https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1). This was quite a reversal from previous elections. For example, in 2008, 52% of Independents voted Democrat and 44% voted Republican. See “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2008,” CNN.com (at:
https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1). In 2006, 57% of Independents voted Democrat and 39% voted Republican. See “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2006,” CNN.com (at:
https://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html).

⁵ From the 2006 midterm elections to the 2010 elections, there was a 37 point swing in favor of the Republican Party; and from the 2008 to the 2010 elections, there was a 27 point swing in favor of the Republican Party. It was these Republican-voting independents who gave the winning margin to conservatives, represented especially by Republicans, in the 2010 elections. See “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2010,” CNN.com (at: https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1); “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2006,” CNN.com (at:
https://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html). “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2008,” CNN.com (at:

https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1).

⁶ Lydia Saad, “Political Ideology: “Conservative” Label Prevails in the South,” Gallup.com, August 14, 2009 (at: https://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx#2).

⁷ CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2010, CNN.com (at: https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1) (accessed on November 19, 2010).

⁸ CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2006, CNN.com
https://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html, (accessed on November 19, 2010);
“CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2008,” CNN.com (at:
https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1) (accessed on November 19, 2010).

⁹ “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2010,” CNN.com (at: https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1) (accessed on November 19, 2010).

¹⁰ Matthew Daly, “Voter turnout increases from last midterm in 2006,” WashingtonPost.com, November 3, 2010 (at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110305169.html).

¹¹ “FFC National Survey,” FFCoalition.com, November 3, 2010 (at: https://www.ffcoalition.com/2010/11/03/ffc-national-survey/).

¹² “FFC National Survey,” FFCoalition.com, November 3, 2010 (at: https://www.ffcoalition.com/2010/11/03/ffc-national-survey/).

¹³ “CNN National Exit Polls, Election 2010,” CNN.com (at: https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1) (accessed on November 19, 2010).

¹⁴ “FFC National Survey,” Faith and Freedom Coalition, November 3, 2010 (at: https://www.ffcoalition.com/2010/11/03/ffc-national-survey/).

¹⁵ “FFC National Survey,” FFCoalition.com, November 3, 2010 (at: https://www.ffcoalition.com/2010/11/03/ffc-national-survey/).

¹⁶ Dave Andrusko, “Abortion, Abortion Funding, Public Opinion, and the Mid-Term Elections,” National Right to Life News, November 3, 2010 (at: https://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Nov10/nv110310part2.html).

¹⁷ Thomas B. Edsall, “Voter Values Determine Political Affiliation,” Washington Post, March 26, 2001 (at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56905-2001Mar25).

¹⁸ Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “Religion in the 2010 Elections,” Pew Research Center Publications, November 3, 2010 (at: https://pewresearch.org/pubs/1791/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-religion-vote).

¹⁹ Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “Religion in the 2010 Elections,” Pew Research Center Publications, November 3, 2010 (at: https://pewresearch.org/pubs/1791/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-religion-vote).

²⁰ Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “Religion in the 2010 Elections,” Pew Research Center Publications, November 3, 2010 (at: https://pewresearch.org/pubs/1791/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-religion-vote).

²¹ Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “Religion in the 2010 Elections,” Pew Research Center Publications, November 3, 2010 (at: https://pewresearch.org/pubs/1791/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-religion-vote).

²² Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “Religion in the 2010 Elections,” Pew Research Center Publications, November 3, 2010 (at: https://pewresearch.org/pubs/1791/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-religion-vote).

²³ Dianne Edmondson, “Pro-Life Victories Are Sweet!” Republican National Coalition for Life E-Notes, November 5, 2010 ( at: https://www.rnclife.org/e-notes/2010/nov10/10-11-05.html).

²⁴ “Rep. Smith: New U.S. House Arguably Most Pro-Life Ever,” LifeSiteNews.com, November 5, 2010 (at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10110501.html).

²⁵ “Committee (C00414219) Summary Reports – 2009-2010 Cycle, DEMOCRATS FOR LIFE OF AMERICA INC PAC,” Federal Election Commission (at: https://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+C00414219) (accessed on November 21, 2010); “Committees And Candidates Supported/Opposed, DEMOCRATS FOR LIFE OF AMERICA INC PAC,” Federal Election Commission (at: https://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/2009_C00414219) (accessed on November 21, 2010).

²⁶ “Committee (C00255406) Summary Reports – 2009-2010 Cycle, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COALITION FOR LIFE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE,” Federal Election Commission (at: https://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+C00255406) (accessed on November 21, 2010); “Committees And Candidates Supported/Opposed, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COALITION FOR LIFE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE,” Federal Election Commission (at: https://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/2009_C00255406) (accessed on November 21, 2010). A letter from Dianne Edmondson, Executive Director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, confirmed that the RNCL PAC contributed to 60 candidates in this election cycle.

²⁷ Matthew Shaffer, “Blue Dog Dems: How Did They Fare?” National Review Online, November 3, 2010 (at: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252400/blue-dog-dems-how-did-they-fare-matthew-shaffer).

²⁸ “Elected Candidates from Operation 10-in-10,” Vets for Freedom Political Action Committee (at: https://www.vetsforfreedom.org/pac/Operation10-in-10/) (accessed November 24, 2010).

²⁹ All eight freshmen veterans were endorsed by the VFF-PAC, whose mission is “to help Iraq & Afghanistan veterans – who believe in succeeding on the battlefield and in advancing strong U. S. national security policies – get elected to the United States Congress.” “VFF-PAC Mission,” Vets for Freedom Political Action Committee (at: https://www.vetsforfreedom.org/pac/about/) (accessed November 24, 2010).

³⁰ Pete Hegseth, “The New Victory Caucus in Congress,” National Review Online, November 4, 2010 (at: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252476/new-victory-caucus-congress-pete-hegseth).

³¹ Greg Janetka, “Most states which saw legislative chambers switch to Republican were won by Obama in 2008,” Ballotpedia, November 4, 2010 (at: https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Most_states_which_saw_legislative_chambers_switch_to_Republican_were_won_by_Obama_in_2008).

³² “Republicans Exceed Expectations in 2010 State Legislative Elections,” National Conference of State Legislatures, November 3, 2010 (at: https://ncsl.org/?tabid=21634); see also “Dem State Lawmakers Defecting To GOP Post-election,” CBSNews.com, November 29, 2010 (at: https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/29/ap/national/main7100495.shtml).

³³ Huma Khan, “Will Redistricting Be a Bloodbath for Democrats?” ABC News, November 4, 2010 (at: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-historic-win-state-legislatures-vote-2010-election/story?id=12049040).

³⁴ David W. Neubauer and Stephen S. Meinhold, Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States, Fifth Edition (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010), p. 187 (at: https://books.google.com/books?id=qG9K5q7Q9NQC).

³⁵ Dr. Richard G. Lee, “Behind the Fall of Iowa’s Judicial Gods,” DallasBlog.com, November 23, 2010 (at: https://www.dallasblog.com/201011231007382/guest-viewpoint/behind-the-fall-of-iowa-s-judicial-gods.html).

³⁶ Hollie McKay, “Liberal Hollywood Quiet for 2010 Midterm Elections, Experts Say,” Fox News, October 26, 2010 (at: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/10/26/hollywood-celebrities-vote-elections-midterms-enthusiasm-gap/).

³⁷ “Guide to the George Soros Network,” Discover The Networks (at: https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589) (accessed on November 19, 2010); Glenn Beck, “Soros Exposed: Research on the Progressive Puppet Master,” GlennBeck.com, November 11, 2010 (at: https://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/47856/);
“Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Institute,” Discover The Networks, July 2007 (at: https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/orgsfundeddirectly%20.html).

³⁸ “Justice Hijacked,” A report published by American Justice Partnership, September 2010 (at:
https://www.americanjusticepartnership.com/hijacked.php).

³⁹ Bob Unruh, “Report: Soros spent millions to ‘undermine’ judiciary,” WorldNetDaily,
September 09, 2010 (at: https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=201409).

⁴⁰ Bob Unruh, “Exposed! George Soros’ scheme for ‘elite’ judiciary,” WorldNetDaily, October 30, 2010 (at: https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=220849).

⁴¹ David W. Neubauer and Stephen S. Meinhold, Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States, Fifth Edition (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010), p. 187 (at: https://books.google.com/books?id=qG9K5q7Q9NQC).

⁴² Tom McClusky, “Altered States: Pro-family victories were seen everywhere,” The Cloakroom, the Blog of FRC Action, November 5, 2010 (at: https://www.thecloakroomblog.com/2010/11/altered-states-pro-life-victories-were-seen-everywhere/).

⁴³ “Soros-Sponsored Candidates, Ballot Initiatives Go Down on Election Day,” Fox News, November 4, 2010 (at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/soros-sponsored-candidates-ballot-initiatives-election-day/).

⁴⁴ “‘Secretary of State Project’ Website” (at: https://www.secstateproject.org/).

⁴⁵ Mark Hemingway, “You know who was a big loser in this election? George Soros.” Washington Examiner, November 3, 2010 (at: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/you-know-who-was-a-big-loser-in-this-election-george-soros-106640398.html).

⁴⁶ Matthew Vadum, “Soros-supported ‘Secretary of State Project’ dealt blow in midterm elections,” The Daily Caller, November 9, 2010 (at: https://dailycaller.com/2010/11/09/soros-supported-secretary-of-state-project-dealt-blow-in-midterm-elections/).

⁴⁷ Ed Lasky, “The Soros Connection in the Minnesota Senate Race Vote Count,” American Thinker, November 17, 2008 (at: https://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/the_soros_connection_in_the_mi.html).

⁴⁸ “Mischief in Minnesota?” Review & Outlook, The Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2008 (at: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB122644940271419147.html).

⁴⁹ “Colorado deadline for personhood amendment moved up,” Ballotpedia, January 25, 2010 (at: https://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_deadline_for_personhood_amendment_moved_up). There were so many complications created by Buescher, including the failure to communicate ID rules to notaries, that it resulted in a voter lawsuit against him over his actions on this initiative.

⁵⁰ Mark Hemingway, “You know who was a big loser in this election? George Soros.” Washington Examiner, November 3, 2010 (at: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/you-know-who-was-a-big-loser-in-this-election-george-soros-106640398.html).

⁵¹ Marty Schladen, “City ready to reverse partner benefits vote,” El Paso Times, November 16, 2010 (at: https://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_16613774).

Tea Parties- Same Song, Second Verse

History of Tea Parties

America’s first Tea Party in 1773 was not an act of wanton lawlessness but rather a deliberate protest against heavy-handed government and excessive taxation.¹ Its leaders took great care to ensure that nothing but tea was thrown overboard – no other items were damaged. The “Indians” even swept the decks of the ships before they left.²

Tea Parties occurred not only in Boston but also in numerous other locales.³ And those who participated were just ordinary citizens expressing their frustration over a government that had refused to listen to them for almost a decade. Their reasonable requests had fallen on deaf ears. Of course, the out-of-touch British claimed that the Tea Parties were lawless and violent,⁴ but such was not the case.

Tea Party Today

Interestingly, in many ways, today’s Tea Parties parallel those of long ago. But rather than protesting a tax on tea, today they are protesting dozens of taxes represented by what they call the Porkulus/Generational Theft Act of 2009 (officially called the “American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act”). For Tea Party members (and for most Americans), that act and the way it was passed epitomizes a broken system whose arrogant leaders often scorn the concerns of the citizens they purport to represent.

Tea Party folks agree with the economic logic of our Founders.

“To contract new debts is not the way to pay off old ones.”⁵ “Avoid occasions of expense…and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions…to discharge the debts.”⁶ GEORGE WASHINGTON
“Nothing can more [affect] national credit and prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to…extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt.”⁷ ALEXANDER HAMILTON
“The maxim of buying nothing but what we have money in our pockets to pay for lays the broadest foundation for happiness.”⁸ “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”⁹ THOMAS JEFFERSON

These are not radical positions – nor are the others set forth in the Tea Party platform – that Congress should: (1) provide the constitutional basis for the bills it passes; (2) reduce intrusive government regulations; (3) balance the budget; (4) limit the increase of government spending to the rate of population growth; (5) and eliminate earmarks unless approved by 2/3rds of Congress.¹⁰ Are these positions dangerous or extreme? Certainly not. In fact, polling shows that Americans support these Tea Party goals by a margin of two-to-one.¹¹

Citizens are angry about the current direction of government. As John Zubly, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775, reminded the British: “My Lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad.”¹² But does that anger automatically equate to violence? Of course not. It does equate to action, however; but instead of throwing tea overboard, modern Tea Parties are throwing out-of-touch politicians from both parties overboard.

The Tea Parties represent much of what is right in America – citizens reacquainting themselves with the Constitution and holding their elected officials accountable to its standards. Two centuries ago, Daniel Webster could have been talking to today’s Tea Party rallies when he said: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution!”¹³

Endnotes

¹ George Bancroft, History of the United States of America (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), III:443-447.

² Bancroft, History (1888), III:456-457; “Facts You May Not Know about the Tea Party,” Boston Tea Party Historical Society (accessed on July 21, 2010).

³ Bancroft, History (1888), III:457 (Philadelphia, NY, SC).

⁴ Bancroft, History (1888), III:460.

⁵ George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1940), 37:177, letter to James Welch, April 7, 1799.

⁶ Washington, Writings, ed. Fitzpatrick (1939), 35:230, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

⁷ Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), XI:140-141.

⁸ Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), VI:188, letter to Mr. Skipwith, July 28, 1787.

⁹ Jefferson, Writings, ed. Lipscomb (1904), XV:23, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816.

¹⁰ “Contract From America,” TeaParty365.com, April 10, 2010.

¹¹ See, for example, “Tea Party 48%, Obama 44%,” Rasmussen Reports, April 5, 2010 (at: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44); “Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress,” Rasmussen Reports, March 28, 2010 (at: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress).

¹² William B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit; or Commemorative Notices of Distinguished American Clergymen or Various Denominations (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1858), 3:221.

¹³ Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress, Second Session (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 2004), 150:17247, Representative Franks quoting Daniel Webster, July 22, 2004.

Steps for Viewing Candidates Scorecards

Steps for Viewing Candidates Scorecards:1. Go to Project Vote Smart.

2. Type in the name of any candidate about whom you are seeking information.

3. When the page comes up for that candidate, click on the “Ratings” folder at the top of the page.

4. Dozens of scorecards on the candidates will appear, listed alphabetically by categories. To see where the candidate stands on abortion, go to the “Abortion” section at the top; scroll down to “Civil Liberties and Civil Rights” to see the ratings of groups like the ACLU and AU and other secular groups that oppose public religious expressions and the ratings of pro-homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; scroll down to “Conservative” to see the ratings of many pro-family Christian groups, such as Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Christian Action Network, scroll down to “Family and Children Issues” to find the ratings of Christian groups such as the Family Research Council; etc.

5. Realize that secular and religious, liberal and conservative groups are all mixed in each category; make sure that you know the philosophy of each group to understand whether its rating is good or bad for a Biblical viewpoint. (For example, National Right to Life is against abortion whereas Planned Parenthood, Pro-Choice America, and NARAL and for abortion. And pro-family groups that embrace Biblical values will include Family Research Council and Eagle Forum while Pro-homosexual marriage groups will include Human Rights Campaign and Gay-Lesbian-Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Therefore, from the “bad” groups, you want to see a low score on the candidate, while from the “good” groups, you want to see a high score.

*For additional voting resources, visit our Voter Resource page for voting guides,
instructions on registering to vote and much more.

David Barton & the ADL

On June 9th, 1994 the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) published unsubstantiated and scurrilous slanders against more than a dozen major Christian leaders including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Donald Wildmon, Phyllis Schlafly, Jay Sekulow, and David Barton.

The title of the now thoroughly discredited publication was “The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America.” Its contention, expressed in incendiary and intemperate language, was that adherence to Christian faith represented an “assault on tolerance and pluralism in America.”

David Cantor, the ADL researcher who wrote the report, and soon thereafter sought employment elsewhere, admitted to the New York Times that he never contacted any of the individuals or groups he slandered for their statements or reactions. Furthermore, he confessed that his report comprised almost entirely statements about the selected Christian leaders that had been written by their opponents. In a flagrant violation of journalistic ethics, he conducted no direct interviews of his subjects.

The abhorrence felt toward this baseless attack upon some of Judaism and Israel’s staunchest friends provoked a firestorm of criticism against the ADL in the mainstream Jewish community. A number of ADL leaders and board members made their objections widely known or resigned their positions in protest. This included well-respected leaders like Carl Pearlston, Phillip Aronoff, Fred Zeidman, and Houston attorney Gary Polland who later told New York magazine that “the liberal Jewish community is the enemy” and “the intellectual backbone of everything that’s wrong in this country.”

On August 2nd, responding to the ADL, the organization I had established and was privileged to lead, Toward Tradition, placed a large paid advertisement on a page of the New York Times. The headline read “Should Jews Fear The Religious Right?” and continued, “We are a group of Jews who wish to make it known that we reject the implications of this report and deplore its publication.” This national indictment of the ADL was signed by eighty-nine prominent Jewish leaders and made clear that most American Jews condemned the Anti-Defamation League for engaging in defamation of its own in its attack on leaders of the religious right.

In response to a vigorous protest by Pat Robertson, on August 3rd, the ADL’s National Director, Abraham Foxman wrote a letter to the evangelical leader in which he admitted to major inaccuracies and slanders in the report. Foxman’s letter also retracted the accusation found in the ADL report that in a 1980 staff meeting Robertson had referred to Jews as “spiritually deaf” and “spiritually blind.”

Syndicated columnist, Mona Charen, wrote, “The ADL has committed defamation. There is no other conclusion to be reached after reading its new report, The Religious Right: the Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America. It is sad that an organization with a proud history of fairness should have descended to this kind of character assassination and name calling.”

During the summer of 1994, Minnesota Senator, Rudy Boschwitz, who had been an honorary vice-chairman of the ADL wrote: “I always believed that the ADL considered diverse opinions permissible …. Indeed, they have just produced a scathing report about a group they maintain doesn’t allow such diversity. Could it be that our own ADL is itself assaulting pluralism and tolerance in America?”

The Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported that William Kristol, son of Jewish intellectual Irving Kristol, and who was Vice President Dan Quayle’s chief of staff, said, “It is so shortsighted and self-destructive for a Jewish organization like the ADL to unjustly and gratuitously alienate Christian conservatives.” Kristol also said that the ADL is part of the Democratic Party’s strategy to “demonize religious conservatives.”

Herb Zweibon, head of Americans for a Safe Israel said the ADL report is a “slap in the face” to friends of Israel and indicated “that the ADL has veered off course and adopted a new ultra-liberal agenda that has nothing to do with ADL’s stated purposes.” He praised the Christian right for standing by Israel when others turned out to be “fair-weather friends.”

The September 1994 issue of Commentary magazine published by the American Jewish Committee carried a stinging denunciation of the ADL and its, by then, notorious report. It was written by Midge Decter the distinguished fellow at the Institute on Religion and Public Life.

A son-in-law of Midge Decter, Elliot Abrams who had served in both the Reagan and Bush administrations termed the ADL report “despicable.”

By the end of 1994, virtually the entire Jewish community had rejected the report as not only false and evil but also as stupid and a self-serving act of unconscionable ingratitude to some of the Jewish community’s greatest friends.

Originally created to combat the extensive anti-Semitism prevalent in the early twentieth century, ninety years later the ADL had become enormously successful with an annual budget of about fifty million dollars. Many have asked how the ADL could possibly have embarked upon this ill-advised adventure, defaming the friends and allies of the Jewish community and bringing embarrassment to itself. The answer offered by most Jewish commentators and by former members of the ADL is that by the 1990s, active anti-Semitism in America was largely extinct and the organization was becoming irrelevant.

In order to redesign its purpose and rediscover relevance, it repackaged itself as a national advocate of secular liberalism. It was chiefly responsible for popularizing the equation that Judaism equals liberalism, thus allowing the demonization of all anti-liberals (conservatives) as anti-Semites.

For this reason, the ADL declined to support then Jewish Dr. Laura Schlesinger in the attempts by the homosexual community to destroy her broadcasting career. The ADL also flouted Jewish tradition and values by taking public positions in favor of homosexual marriage and in favor of aggressive gun control, arguing against the conventional understanding of the 2nd Amendment. In the attack against the Boy Scouts of America mounted by the homosexual community, the ADL backed the homosexual plaintiffs all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its nationwide partnership with Barnes and Noble in the program Hate Hurts the ADL endorsed the books Heather Has Two Mommies and Steve Has Two Daddies as suitable tools for teaching tolerance to young children. In short, as anti-Semitism declined in America, the ADL found a new reason to exist and a new reason to raise large sums of money for its headquarters and staff. (Abraham Foxman, national director of ADL earns annual compensation of about half a million dollars and was disgraced by his role in persuading President Bill Clinton to issue a pardon for tax fugitive Marc Rich, a major ADL contributor.)

In conclusion, few of prominence and respectability in the Jewish community today regard the ADL as a responsible voice for Judaism. Wags dismiss the ADL as the circumcised wing of the Democratic Party.

The reputations of all those maligned in the hateful 1994 report have suffered no setbacks and if anything, the Jewish community looks toward those named with appreciation and gratitude for their staunch defense of those values that have made the United States of America the most tranquil and prosperous haven Jews have experienced in the past two millennia.

As someone who has been a rabbi and Jewish community leader for several decades, the undersigned wishes personally to thank David Barton of Wallbuilders along with the other leaders defamed in that sixteen-year-old mistake for all they have done for Judeo-Christian values in America and to express his willingness to be contacted personally by anyone seeking further information on this shameful episode in the history of a once proud and valuable organization, the Anti-Defamation League.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin

The American Alliance of Jews and Christians.

Religious Acknowledgments in the Capitol Visitor Center

Religious Acknowledgments
in the Capitol Visitor Centerby David Barton in the 1990s, the construction of a U. S. Capitol Visitor Center (a structure separate from but attached to the U. S. Capitol) was proposed to better control the flow of tourists throughout the Capitol building. The official ground-breaking ceremony occurred in June 2000, but following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there was a renewed emphasis on building the Center as a means to provide better security at the Capitol and protect Members of Congress. (Prior to 9/11, the Capitol was open day or night to any citizen who wanted to enter.)

In August 2002, construction began on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), and in 2004, we were asked by leading Members of Congress to help them monitor the content of the hundreds of displays and exhibits in the proposed CVC. Those leaders understood the importance of presenting accurate information throughout the CVC, for 15,000 people go through the Capitol each day, including thousands of school children.

We were given full access to the proposed content for the CVC and we closely monitored those materials, filing regular reports with congressional leadership. We found much objectionable content including not only inaccurate historical facts but especially a deliberate omission and even censoring of the rich religious history of the Capitol. An astute government researcher accurately noted that historical omission is one of the most effective means of producing a slanted bias:

[L]iberal and secular bias is primarily accomplished by exclusion. . . . Such a bias is much harder to observe than a positive vilification or direct criticism, but it is the essence of censorship. It is effective not only because it is hard to observe (it isn’t there) and therefore hard to counteract, but also because it makes only the liberal, secular positions familiar and plausible.

We detailed for the congressional leaders the many omissions and the liberal left secular bias evident across the hundreds of displays in the CVC. Much of the objectionable content was changed and the inaccurate material corrected – until congressional leadership changed following the 2006 elections. Since that time, there has been a full reversion to the liberal bias and historically inaccurate content originally evident in the displays.

Several House Members intervened with specific attempts to correct some of those problems – including former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), who in October 2007 introduced HR 3908:

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to ensure that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the national motto “In God We Trust” are each displayed prominently in the Capitol Visitor Center on a permanent basis and to prohibit the Architect from removing or refusing to include language or other content from exhibits and materials relating to the Capitol Visitor Center on the grounds that the language or content includes a religious reference or Judeo-Christian content.

The new congressional leadership refused to act on her bill – or to act on additional recommendations offered by other Members.

Those Members therefore concluded that the general public needed to be made aware of the situation within the CVC so that they could apply pressure to Congress. To that end, in early July 2008, we began work on an 8-minute video to highlight some of the many problems with the CVC. (That short video – “The War on God in America” – can be viewed on YouTube.)

While working on that DVD, on July 23, 2008, we were asked to give a formal briefing about the problems within the CVC to a group of several dozen House Members. Eight days later on July 31, 2008, 108 House Members sent a letter to the Architect of the Capitol (responsible for the construction of the CVC), expressing their deep concern over what they saw (or rather, what they did not see) in the CVC, explaining:

We have been troubled to learn in recent weeks that some aspects of the new CVC – including displays, videos, and historic interpretations – may be historically incomplete and reflect an apathetic disposition toward our nation’s religious history. . . . It is clear that those who designed and developed the displays produced products excluding any significant references to God or faith. . . . In fact, not only is our national motto, “In God We Trust,” not a central theme of the CVC, it has been totally excluded from any effective presentation. . . . Some omitted facts are so glaringly obvious that to exclude them offers a distorted view of American history that is not acceptable to us and that we believe will ultimately not be acceptable to the American taxpayers. None of us should want to construct a $621 million shrine to political correctness that does not accurately reflect a significant part of American history.

Under this growing pressure, the Architect promised to make changes – including the addition of the National Motto. Amazingly, the part of the Visitor Center designed to replicate the actual House Chamber omitted its prominent phrase “In God We Trust,” even though it’s boldly displayed in the actual House Chamber (and it is also displayed in the actual Senate Chamber). However, despite the promises, no changes were made by the Architect. (The Architect had previously been a central figure in the national controversy about prohibiting the word “God” from the personal flag certificates that Members of Congress award to individuals to commemorate notable achievements and events.)

Shortly after that letter was sent to the Architect, our “War on God in America” video was released. Many Members posted it on their own websites and even showed it at town hall meetings to urge citizens to put pressure on congressional leadership. Media stories and viral marketing also spread the word, thus further increasing the public pressure. In September 2008, an opportunity finally arose in Congress to make positive changes.

When the CVC was originally proposed in the 1990s, it was projected to be a $71 million structure. By 2000, the proposed price had risen to $265 million, and when construction finally began in 2002, the predicted price tag had soared to $368 million, with construction to be finished in 2004. However, construction was not finished until late 2008, and the price tag was $621 million – four years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Because of the numerous cost overruns, the CVC repeatedly returned to Congress seeking more money, and in September 2008 they sought the final monies necessary to finish the facility and open it to the public in December 2008. Additionally, HR 5159 was introduced to transfer the permanent administrative authority over the CVC from the congressional oversight committees and move it to the Architect of the Capitol. This situation offered Members an opportunity to leverage positive changes in the CVC.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), supported by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), placed a hold (that is, a complete stop) on the CVC transfer bill unless specific positive additions regarding religious content were made. Although Senate leadership warned DeMint that “Delaying the opening of the CVC has serious security implications . . . [and] significant financial consequences,” Sen. DeMint held firm.

On September 25, 2008, DeMint agreed to release the measure if (1) the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance were engraved in stone in the CVC, and (2) the errant declaration was removed that E Pluribus Unum was the national motto. On September 26, Senate leadership agreed to his terms (although complaining that adding the National Motto and the Pledge would cost an additional $150,000). Having achieved this victory, on September 27, Sen. DeMint took to the Senate floor to announce the agreement and highlight some of the problems within the CVC:

In touring the CVC, I found the exhibits to be politically incorrect, left leaning, and secular in nature. The secular aspects were especially surprising because of the deep connection between faith and the Capitol and our Judeo Christian traditions. . . . The first thing you are confronted with once you have entered the CVC is the phrase “E. Pluribus Unum” engraved in stone above a mockup of the Capitol dome. A panel next to the dome describes E. Pluribus Unum as our Nations’ motto. This is not only completely false but also offensive to the 90 percent of Americans who approve of our Nation’s actual motto “In God We trust,” signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. Unfortunately, nowhere in the CVC will you find the words “In God We Trust” engraved in stone. The acknowledgment of God and our Nation’s motto has been left out of the CVC. In fact, the massive replica of the House Chamber omits the “In God We Trust” from above the Speaker’s chair. We are now told they are planning to fix this “mistake,” but on my tour 2 days ago, it was still missing. Also missing are the words to our Pledge of Allegiance – the only words spoken each morning by both Chambers of Congress.

The Architect of the Capitol, under increasing pressure and media attention, finally relented and placed “In God We Trust” in pinned bronze letters above the section in the Visitor Center designed to replicate the actual House Chamber.

Over on the House side, Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) declared that the CVC was a “$600 million dollar godless pit,” and the108 Members of the House who had earlier written the Architect of the Capitol authorized Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) – head of the Congressional Prayer Caucus – to negotiate on their behalf with House leadership. On September 26, 2008, Randy laid out their demands for the CVC, explaining:

As Chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, I am writing on behalf of over 100 Members of Congress who recently contacted the Acting Architect of the Capitol sharing our concerns about the historical inaccuracies in the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). Specifically, we are concerned about the lack of content that accurately represents our nation’s religious history and the principles on which our nation was founded. . . . We are requesting that the following changes be made to the new CVC before it opens on December 2, 2008:
That the phrase “Our Nation’s Motto” be removed from the plaque describing the engraving of E. Pluribus Unum;
That “In God We Trust” be engraved in stone in a prominent location within the CVC and that the panel describing the engraving include the proper recognition of this phrase as our national motto;
That the Pledge of Allegiance be engraved in stone in a prominent location within the CVC;
That there be a significant permanent display of religious history in the U. S. Capitol, reflecting the rich tradition that prayer, acknowledgment of God, and Judeo-Christian traditions have played throughout the history of the Capitol, and comparable in size relative to other themed displays; and
That there be an ongoing effort to investigate and correct historical inaccuracies throughout the Center.

On October 1, 2008, Randy submitted eight essential items to be included in the permanent display on the Judeo-Christian religious history in the Capitol, including:

1. History of the Chaplaincy of the House and Senate, to include a list of the chaplains who have served and the different faith backgrounds of each.

2. History of the Capitol as a Church, including the fact that (1) religious services took place in the Capitol when Congress was in session and was an official function of Congress, and (2) that in 1867 the Capitol was the largest church in Washington with 2000 people attending weekly.

3. A list of the “firsts” who preached or prayed at the Capitol and excerpts of their text, such as: Dorothy Ripley – first woman to preach in the Capitol (1806) [President Jefferson was in attendance]; Bishop John England – first Catholic to preach in Capitol (President John Quincy Adams present, 1826); Morris Raphall – first Jewish Rabbi to open the House in prayer (1860); Henry Highland Garnet – first African American to speak in Congress, and he preached a sermon…just two weeks after the 13th Amendment passed (February 12, 1865);

4. “God Bless America” sung in unison by the Members of Congress on the steps of the Capitol on 9-11 after the terrorist attacks.

5. Photos/reference to Members reading during the Annual Bible Reading/National Day of Prayer events;

6. Congressional Resolutions Requesting Presidential Proclamations for days of Thanksgiving and Prayer (Washington and Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamations);

7. The Aitken Bible of 1782 – “Bible of the Revolution” (with an informational placard explaining that it is the first English Bible printed in America and the first Bible ever to be printed as an Act of Congress);

8. Lincoln’s Bible and his 2nd Inaugural address next to the table at his side during the speech.

On October 2, 2008, House leadership agreed to Randy’s demands (just as the Senate had agreed to Sen. DeMint’s demands), but when the CVC opened two months later on December 2, 2008, still nothing had been done – the engravings had not been added, nor was there a permanent display of Judeo-Christian influence in the history of the Capitol.

National media outlets (such as The Washington Post, The Hill, National Review, The Washington Times, the Seattle Times, and many others) covered the CVC opening and talked candidly about its anti-religious bias and historical content problems. Senator DeMint also issued a press release that strongly criticized the CVC for ignoring its agreement to include the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. He noted that the new structure “fails to appropriately honor our religious heritage that has been critical to America’s success. . . . You cannot accurately tell the history of America or its Capitol by ignoring the religious heritage of our Founders and the generations since who relied on their faith for strength and guidance. . . . The CVC’s most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government.” Many pro-family groups (including the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and others) also spread the word; citizens responded and called congressional leaders, but still nothing happened.

On May 20, 2009, Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA)
quietly introduced a measure (very similar to Marilyn Musgrave’s original 2007 proposal) that would embody the agreements reached by the Senate and the House regarding the engravings in the CVC (at least 160 other Members of the House co-signed his measure). Working diligently with leaders of a few specific committees, but in a low-key unpublicized manner, Dan was able to garner agreement in both the House and Senate to pass H.Con.Res.131: “Directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of `In God we trust’ in the Capitol Visitor Center.” That measure was approved by the House on July 9, 2009, and by the Senate on July 10, 2009. (Because it was not a public law but only a decision by Congress of the policy to be followed within its own building, the measure did not require the president’s signature.)

As soon as the measure passed, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (located in Madison, Wisconsin) promptly filed suit in federal court to prevent the phrases from being inscribed inside the CVC. However, on September 21, 2009, the day that the Architect of the Capitol was officially served with the lawsuit, the phrase “One Nation Under God” had already been finished. And before the lawsuit was scheduled for trial before a federal judge, by November 25, the Pledge of Allegiance had also been engraved inside the CVC.

Consequently, if any federal judge orders those phrases to be removed, they will literally have to tear down part of the CVC in order to remove the acknowledgments of God from the building! Many have joked about how Washington, D. C. would have to be sandblasted if the acknowledgment of God were ever ordered removed from public buildings, and the CVC is now another in the already long list of such structures (e.g., the Library of Congress, the Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Memorial, the White House, the federal courts building, the U. S. Supreme Court, Union Station, etc.).

The Capitol Visitor Center is the latest in a lengthy tradition of federal buildings in Washington, D., C., including public acknowledgments of God. The fact that this tradition has continued is due to the hard work and committed leadership of several Members of Congress in both the House and Senate, including Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Randy Forbes, Rep. Dan Lungren, and others.

Calling Muslims to the Capitol?

As nations such as Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands (and many others in Europe) have become more secular, they have demonstrated a willingness to embrace virtually anything – anything except their traditional Christian foundations. In fact, they now regularly repudiate those foundations, promoting abortion, legalizing homosexual marriage, and changing their traditional legal codes. And accepting the falsehood that all beliefs are equal and that truth is relative, they have even been willing to incorporate Islamic Sharia law into their legal codes in order to protect the special practices of some Muslims living among them. This has energized many Muslims in those countries and they are displaying a new boldness that is vocal, visible, and demonstrably assertive.

Each year, nearly 5,000 Muslim “honor killings” occur across the world (a practice whereby parents kill children who allegedly bring “dishonor” on Islam by dating non-Muslims, wearing western garb, converting to another religion, etc.).

Dozens of those murders are committed in Europe, but in many of these formerly Christian nations, those who commit the “honor killings” (i.e., the murder of their own children) often go unpunished since the death of their child was “required” by Islamic law (now included in the legal law of the land). Additionally, many public personalities across Europe who criticized Islam have been murdered, causing Parliaments in the Netherlands and other European countries to forbid criticism of Islam in an effort to prevent further murders. These nations, having given up precious ground, are now having difficulty retaking it.

Historically, on this continent Christian America adopted an open free-market approach to all religions from the beginning. American Christians then (and now) were not fearful of other religions. They were confident that Christianity would prevail on its own merits and they therefore followed the Biblical precedent set forth in both the Old and New Testaments of simply presenting God’s word in a straightforward manner, expecting that the Holy Spirit will confirm His word in the hearts of hearers. Christians believe that on a level playing field, Christianity will always prevail through the voluntary choice of the people.

As a result, Christian America welcomed all religions, with Muslims arriving here by 1619, Jews establishing their first synagogue in 1654, and Buddhists, Hindus, and others also being present from the early days. Significantly, only America extended (and continues to extend) a free-market religious tolerance to others while still preserving the core societal values of our Christian heritage. But the culture has begun to shift. The level playing field is being eroded. As in Europe, Christianity is being knocked down and Islam elevated.

For example, a federal court of appeals ruled that public schools in nine western states can require a three week indoctrination to the Islamic faith
in which all junior high students must pretend they are Muslims and offer prayers to Allah (students are further encouraged to take Islamic names, call each other by those names, wear Islamic garb, participate in Jihad games, and read the Koran during those three weeks). Yet that very court also ruled that it was unconstitutional for those same students to voluntarily mention “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Likewise, a federal court on the east coast ruled that public schools may display Islamic holiday symbols but not Christian ones. And the University of Michigan recently spent $25,000 of taxpayer money to install foot-washing facilities to accommodate the religious practices of Muslim students but made no similar expenditure on behalf of students from any other religion.

As a result of such actions, many Muslims are exercising a new boldness in America. In fact, Muslim “honor killings” have now arrived in the United States (most recently in Texas); and just a few weeks ago, direct action was taken to prevent the honor-killing of a 17-year old Muslim girl in Ohio who converted to Christianity and, in fear of her life, fled from her parents to Florida.

American Muslims have also enjoyed the direct support of President Obama. In April of 2010, he traveled to Egypt where he told the Muslim world that America no longer considers itself a Christian nation. He later traveled to Turkey and announced that America was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world (despite the fact that 78% of Americans claim to be Christians but only 1% claim to be Muslims). Then in May 2010, President Obama refused to invite Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House to participate in the National Day of Prayer (as former presidents have done), but in September, he did invite Muslim leaders to the White House for a special Muslim Ramadan celebration to commemorate Allah delivering the Koran to his prophet Mohammed.

Heartened by this new encouragement, Muslim leaders called 50,000 observant Muslims to come to the Capitol on Friday, September 25, 2010 for a day of Jummah (Friday congregational prayer). The sponsors promised that from 4 a.m. to 7 p.m., “the Athan [the call given five times each day for Muslims to participate in mandatory prayer] would be chanted on Capitol Hill, echoing off of the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and other great edifices that surround Capitol Hill.” The goal of this event was that “the peace, beauty and solidarity of Islam will shine through America’s capitol.” In fact, the website for this unprecedented event proudly and unabashedly declared, “Our Time Has Come!”

As Bible-believing people, let’s pray – and please encourage others to participate with you, that America’s heart will turn back to God. We know that our contest is with spiritual forces (Ephesians 6:12), and we firmly believe that He Who is within us is greater than any other god or force (1 John 4:4), so I encourage you to fill America with prayer to the True God this coming Friday.

God Bless!

David Barton

P. S. This call for Christians to pray this Friday is not a prayer “competition” between Christianity and Islam, nor is it a spiritual Christian “jihad” or “holy war” (what an oxymoronic term – a holy war!). After all, in I Kings 18, Elijah encouraged the prophets of the god Baal to take more time in their praying; he didn’t object to their prayers, he just wanted to make sure that he was able to make his own prayers to the True God. This Friday offers a similar opportunity for those who fear God and believe His Scriptures to offer up their own prayers to Him.

The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?

Was the American Revolution an act of rebellion against God and the Bible? Many today claim that it was. For example, John McArthur (Pastor of Grace Community Church and host of the national radio program “Grace to You”) asserts:

People have mistakenly linked democracy and political freedom to Christianity. That’s why many contemporary evangelicals believe the American Revolution was completely justified, both politically and scripturally. They follow the arguments of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are Divinely endowed rights. . . . But such a position is contrary to the clear teachings and commands of Romans 13:1-7. So the United States was actually born out of a violation of New Testament principles, and any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disobedience by the Founding Fathers.¹

Oklahoma church leader Albert Soto similarly claims:

The Colonists’ act of rebellion flies in the face of [Romans 13:1,2]. Did they overlook this verse? No, these were not men ignorant of Scripture. In fact, they used Scripture to support their cause in the most devious of ways. The deception that prevailed during this period of history was immense. God and Scripture was the vehicle of mobilization that unified the cause, gave it credence, and allowed the Deist leaders at the top to move the masses toward rebellion. Scripture was the Forefathers’ most useful tool of propaganda.²

Others hold the same position.³ In fact, Dr. Daryl Cornett of Mid-America Theological Seminary maintains that the American Revolution occurred because . . .

Deistic and Unitarian tendencies in regards to religion. . . . were of such strength that even orthodox Christians were swept up into rebellion against their governing authorities. . . . Those Christians who supported physical resistance against the tyranny of Britain generally turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation, propped up by poor exegesis and application of the Bible.

While such charges certainly reflect the personal views of these critics, they definitely do not accurately reflect the extended theological debates that occurred at the time of the American Revolution. In fact, contrary to Dr. Cornett’s claim that the Founding Fathers “turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation” of the American Revolution, the topic of civil disobedience and resistance to governing authorities had been a subject of serious theological inquiries for centuries before the Enlightenment. This was especially true during the Reformation, when the subject was directly addressed by theologians such as Frenchman John Calvin,⁴ German Martin Luther,⁵ Swiss Reformation leader Huldreich Zwingli,⁶ and numerous others.⁷

It was not strange that such Biblical discussions should have arisen in that period, for many tyrannical civil leaders who felt personally threatened by Biblical Reformation teachings attempted to suppress the spread of those teachings through bloody purges, brutal tortures, and barbaric persecutions – such as when French leaders conducted the famous St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572, resulting in 110,000 Reformation followers being killed, or when Henry VIII (1491-1547) similarly utilized public executions and burnings at the stake (a practice continued by Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth I, and subsequent monarchs). In fact, those civil leaders even deliberately enacted laws specifically prohibiting Reformation adherents from practicing their Scriptural beliefs.

Facing such civil opposition, Reformation leaders turned to the Bible and found much guidance on the subject of civil disobedience and resistance to tyrannical civil authority. In fact, numerous famous heroes of the Bible – including many of those listed in the “Faith Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11 as well as in other passages – were accorded their special position of honor because they committed civil disobedience (e.g., Daniel, the Three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew midwives, Rahab, Moses, etc.; and the Apostles in Acts 4-5 also declared their willingness to be civilly disobedient against tyrannical commands of civil and religious rulers).

Some of the important theological works on the subject of civil disobedience and resistance published during that time included the 1556 Short Treatise of Politic Power and of the True Obedience which Subjects Owe to Kings and Other Civil Governors by Bishop John Poynet (1516-1566), and the 1579 Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defense Of Liberty Against Tyrants), published by French Reformation theologian Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623) and French Reformation leader Hubert Languet (1518-1581) in response to the horrific St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. Both works undertook an in-depth Biblical examination of how God’s people throughout the Scriptures had responded to civil rulers, including both good and bad rulers. Those theological discussions continued in England during the brutal reign of Henry VIII (1491-1547), the repressive abuses of James I (1566-1625), and the ruthless rule of the Tudor monarchs, including that of Bloody Mary (1516-1558).

In fact, James I, in addition to using brutal persecutions and murders to help combat the theological teachings and writings leveled against him, even ordered Church leaders (recall that James I was the official head of the English Church) to concoct two new “church” doctrines: (1) the Divine Right of Kings (that kings stand in the place of God, representing Him to the people), and (2) Complete Submission and Non-Resistance to Authority (that because kings have an allegedly Divine position, they are not to be resisted – ever, for any reason). Not surprisingly, Reformation followers openly opposed James’ “irrational and unscriptural doctrines,”⁸ thus prompting him to level even harsher persecutions against them, including mutilation, hanging, and disemboweling.

In 1644, at a time of unlimited monarchies wherein the king was the absolute law, Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford penned the important theological work Lex Rex, demonstrating that the law is king rather than vice versa. For asserting that Biblical position, Rutherford was eventually charged by British monarchy with high treason but died before he could be tried. Not surprisingly, Lex Rex was banned by the Crown and every person who had a copy was ordered to turn it in to a king’s official.
James II continued the persecution of believers, and not surprisingly, the theological debates also continued. For example, when clergyman Abednego Seller penned a defense of James’ reign, urging complete obedience to the Crown in his Passive Obedience Prov’d to be the Doctrine of the Church of England, from the Reformation to These Times (London, 1689), clergyman Samuel Johnson responded with An Answer to the History of Passive Obedience (London, 1689).

Significantly, the many theological writings penned during these brutal and tyrannical reigns provided the underpinning for the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which: (1) tyrannical monarchs were set aside; (2) England made its first attempts to separate State from Church and thus end religious tyranny and murders wrongly committed in the name of Christ; and (3) representative government was instituted under William of Orange (1650-1702).

When British autocratic tyranny began to increase toward America preceding the Revolution, those ancient theological debates were renewed. The Quakers and Anglicans adopted the position set forth by King James I (and subsequently embraced by Dr. Cornett, Rev. MacArthur, and others of today’s critics), but the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, and most other denominations of that day adopted the theological viewpoint presented by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Rutherford, Poynet, Mornay, Languet, Johnson, and other theologians across the centuries. In fact, John Adams specifically recommended the theological works of Poynet (A Short Treatise of Politic Power, 1556) and Duplessis-Mornay and (A Defense Of Liberty Against Tyrants, 1579) to readers who wanted to understand the theological thinking in the American founding.⁹

On the basis of those numerous historic theological writings (which, significantly, had also been regularly preached from American pulpits for decades prior to the American Revolution¹⁰), Americans embraced two specific theological positions that guided their thinking and conduct in the conflict with Great Britain.

The first was that most Christian denominations during the Founding Era held that while they were forbidden to overthrow the institution of government and live in anarchy, they were not required blindly to submit to every law and policy. Those in the Founding Era understood that the general institution of government was unequivocally ordained by God and was not to be overthrown, but that did not mean that God approved every specific government; God had ordained government in lieu of anarchy – He opposed anarchy, rebellion, lawlessness, and wickedness and wanted civil government in society. Therefore, a crucial determination in the colonists’ Biblical exegesis was whether opposition to authority was simply to resist the general institution of government (an institution ordained by God Himself), or whether it was instead to resist tyrannical leaders who had themselves rebelled against God. (The Scriptural model for this position was repeatedly validated when God Himself raised up leaders such as Gideon, Ehud, Jepthah, Samson, and Deborah to throw off tyrannical governments – leaders subsequently praised in Hebrews 11:32 for those acts of faith.) That the Founders held the view that the institution of government is not to be opposed but that tyranny is, is a position clearly evident in their writings.
For example, Founding Father James Otis explained that the only king who had a “Divine right” was God Himself; beyond that, God had ordained that power should rest with the people (c.f., Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 1:15-16, etc.):

Has it [government] any solid foundation? – any chief cornerstone. . . ? I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God. . . . Government. . . . is by no means an arbitrary thing depending merely on compact or human will for its existence. . . . There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature and the grant of God Almighty, Who has given to all men a natural right to be free; and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so if they please….If both those powers are retained in the hands of the many (where nature seems to have placed them originally), the government is a simple democracy, or a government of all over all. . . . [God is] the only monarch in the universe Who has a clear and indisputable right to absolute power because He is the only one Who is omniscient as well as omnipotent.¹¹

Founding Father John Dickinson (a signer of the Constitution) also affirmed that spiritual view:

Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher source – from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us, exist with us, and cannot be taken from us by any human power without taking our lives.¹²

In fact, Samuel Adams (the “Father of the American Revolution” and a signer of the Declaration of Independence) specifically recommended a study of the Scriptures in order to understand the basis of America’s struggle against a tyrannical king, explaining that:

The Rights of the Colonists as Christians. . . . may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.¹³

The Founders clearly believed that they were not in rebellion to God’s ordained institution of civil government; they were only resisting tyranny and not the institution itself. In fact, Rev. Jacob Duché (a supporter of the British) argued from the Bible in favor of the American position, explaining:

Inasmuch as all rulers are in fact the servants of the public and appointed for no other purpose than to be “a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well” [c.f., Rom. 13:3], whenever this Divine order is inverted – whenever these rulers abuse their sacred trust by unrighteous attempts to injure, oppress, and enslave those very persons from whom alone, under God, their power is derived – does not humanity, does not reason, does not Scripture, call upon the man, the citizen, the Christian of such a community to “stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ….hath made them free!” [Galatians 5:1] The Apostle enjoins us to “submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake,” but surely a submission to the unrighteous ordinances of unrighteous men, cannot be “for the Lord’s sake,” for “He loveth righteousness and His countenance beholds the things that are just.”¹⁴

Despite the Americans embracing what they believed to be a fully-supported Biblical position, some British leaders nevertheless specifically accused the Americans of anarchy and rebellion – a charge to which John Quincy Adams forcefully responded:

[T]here was no anarchy. . . . [T]he people of the North American union and of its constituent states were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God (which they all) and by the laws of the Gospel (which they nearly all) acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.¹⁵ (emphasis added)

Declaration signer Francis Hopkinson (also a church musician and choir leader) agreed:

Q. It has often been said, that America is in a state of rebellion. Tell me, therefore, what is Rebellion?
A. It is when a great number of people, headed by one or more factious leaders, aim at deposing their lawful prince without any just cause of complaint in order to place another on his throne.
Q. Is this the case of the Americans?
A. Far otherwise.¹⁶

Reflective of the Founding Father’s belief that they were not rebelling against God or resisting ordained government but only tyranny was the fact that the first national motto proposed for America in August 1776 was “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”¹⁷ – a summation of the famous 1750 sermon¹⁸ preached by the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew (a principle figure in the Great Awakening).

The second Scriptural viewpoint overwhelmingly embraced by most Americans during the Revolutionary Era was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, etc.). The fact that the American Revolution was an act of self-defense and was not an offensive war undertaken by the Americans remained a point of frequent spiritual appeal for the Founding Fathers. After all, Great Britain had attacked America, not vice versa; the Americans had never fired the first shot – not in the Boston Massacre of 1770, the bombing of Boston and burning of Charlestown in 1774, or in the attacks on Williamsburg, Concord, or Lexington in 1775.

Illustrative of this belief was the famous command to the Lexington Minutemen, “Don’t fire unless fired upon!” Yet, having been fired upon without having broken any law, the Americans believed they had a Biblical right to self-defense. In fact, the Rev. Peter Powers, in a famous sermon he preached in front of the Vermont Legislature in 1778,¹⁹ specifically noted that America had “taken up arms in its own defense”²⁰ – that she had no initiated the conflict but was only defending herself after being attacked.

The Framers’ writings repeatedly emphasized this point of spiritual appeal. For example, Founding Father Francis Hopkinson made this clear in his 1777 work “A Political Catechism”:

Q. What is war?
A. The curse of mankind; the mother of famine and pestilence; the source of complicated miseries; and the undistinguishing destroyer of the human species.
Q. How is war divided?
A. Into offensive and defensive.
Q. What is the general object of an offensive war? . . .
A. [F]or the most part, it is undertaken to gratify the ambition of a prince, who wishes to subject to his arbitrary will a people whom God created free, and to gain an uncontrolled dominion over their rights and property. . . .
Q. What is defensive war?
A. It is to take up arms in opposition to the invasions of usurped power and bravely suffer present hardships and encounter present dangers, to secure the rights of humanity and the blessings of freedom to generations yet unborn.
Q. Is even defensive war justifiable in a religious view?
A. The foundation of war is laid in the wickedness of mankind . . . . God has given man wit to contrive, power to execute, and freedom of will to direct his conduct. It cannot be but that some, from a depravity of will, will abuse these privileges and exert these powers to the injury of others; and the oppressed would have no safety nor redress but by exerting the same powers in their defense and it is our duty to set a proper value upon and defend to the utmost our just rights and the blessings of life, otherwise a few miscreants [unprincipled individuals] would tyrannize over the rest of mankind, and make the passive multitude the slaves of their power. Thus it is that defensive is not only justifiable but an indispensable duty.
Q. Is it upon these principles that the people of America are resisting the arms of Great Britain, and opposing force with force?
A. Strictly so. . . . And may Heaven prosper their virtuous undertaking!²¹

Founding Father James Wilson (a signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution, and an original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court) affirmed:

The defense of one’s self . . . is not, nor can it be, abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man. It is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those to whom he bears a peculiar relation – of his wife, of his parent, of his child. . . . As a man is justified in defending, so he is justified in retaking his property. . . . Man does not exist for the sake of government, but government is instituted for the sake of man.²²

According to the Founders’ Biblical understanding, the fact that they were engaged in a defensive action made all the difference – they believed that they could boldly approach God and sincerely seek His aid and blessing in such a situation. In fact, so cognizant were American leaders they that they would account to God for their actions – and so convinced were they that they would be held innocent before Him – that the flag of the Massachusetts Army proclaimed “An Appeal to God,” and the flag of the Massachusetts Navy likewise declared an “Appeal to Heaven.”²³

The Continental Congress also issued a manifesto reflecting a similar tone of submission to God:

We, therefore, the Congress of the United States of America, do solemnly declare and proclaim that. . . . [w]e appeal to the God Who searcheth the hearts of men for the rectitude of our intentions; and in His holy presence declare that, as we are not moved by any light or hasty suggestions of anger or revenge, so through every possible change of fortune we will adhere to this our determination.²⁴

Believing that they were thus operating under fundamental Biblical principles, Founding Father Samuel Adams therefore boldly warned British officials:

There is One above us Who will take exemplary vengeance for every insult upon His majesty. You know that the cause of America is just. You know that she contends for that freedom to which all men are entitled – that she contends against oppression, rapine, and more than savage barbarity. The blood of the innocent is upon your hands, and all the waters of the ocean will not wash it away. We again make our solemn appeal to the God of heaven to decide between you and us. And we pray that, in the doubtful scale of battle, we may be successful as we have justice on our side, and that the merciful Savior of the world may forgive our oppressors.²⁵

Significantly, the Americans had been militarily attacked for well over two years before they finally announced a separation; and for eleven years preceding that announcement (from 1765 to 1776), they had diligently pursued reconciliation and not conflict, offering documents such as their famous appeal of 1775 and the May 1776 “Olive Branch Petition,” each of which was submitted in a completely submissive and conciliatory tone. Reflective of this tone was the writing of Founding Father Stephen Hopkins (a signer of the Declaration and Governor of Rhode Island) in which he explained to the British:

We finally beg leave to assert that the first planters of these colonies were pious Christians – were faithful [British] subjects who, with a fortitude and perseverance little known and less considered, settled these wild countries by God’s goodness and their own amazing labors [and] thereby added a most valuable dependence to the crown of Great-Britain; were ever dutifully subservient to her interests; so taught their children that not one has been disaffected to this day but all have honestly obeyed every royal command and cheerfully submitted to every constitutional law; . . . have carefully avoided every offensive measure . . . have never been troublesome or expensive to the mother country; have kept due order and supported a regular government; have maintained peace and practiced Christianity; and in all conditions and in every relation have demeaned themselves as loyal, as dutiful, and as faithful subjects ought; and that no kingdom or state hath, or ever had, colonies more quiet, more obedient, or more profitable than these have ever been.²⁶

The Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon (also a signer of the Declaration) also affirmed:

On the part of America, there was not the most distant thought of subverting the government or of hurting the interest of the people of Great Britain, but of defending their own privileges from unjust encroachment; there was not the least desire of withdrawing their allegiance from the common sovereign [King George III] till it became absolutely necessary – and indeed, it was his own choice.²⁷

Significantly, as Dr. Witherspoon had correctly noted, it was Great Britain who had terminated the entreaties; in fact, during the last two years of America’s appeals, her peaceful pleas were directly met by armed military force. King George III dispatched 25,000 British troops to invade his own Colonies, enter the homes of his own citizens to take their private possessions and goods, and imprison them without trials – all in violation of his own British Common Law, English Bill of Rights, and Magna Carta (centuries old documents that formed the basis of the covenant between British rulers and citizens). Only when those governmental covenants had been broken by their rulers and America had been directly attacked did the Americans respond in self-defense.

On the basis of these two theological understandings (that God Himself had ordained the institution of civil government, and that God had explicitly authorized civil self-defense) the Founding Fathers and the majority of American Christians in that day believed that they were conducting themselves in a manner that was not in rebellion to God or the Scriptures.

Consequently, Dr. Cornett’s claim, as well as those of John MacArthur and other critics, that the Founders “generally turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation, propped up by poor exegesis and application of the Bible” merely reflects the side that they have taken in the historic theological debate – the same as if they had been 1776 Quakers arguing against Presbyterians, or Anglicans against Congregationalists. However, just because these modern critics may disagree with the theology of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Mornay, Rutherford, and other theologians does not mean that from an historical viewpoint the Americans’ approach was “propped up by poor exegesis and application of the Bible,” or that the Founders “generally turned to Enlightenment rhetoric for validation.” It simply means that today’s critics are either uninformed about the actual historical and theological writings from the Reformation through the Revolution, or that they disagree with the theological positions held by the Founding Fathers, theologians, and ministers of that era, but it does not mean that there was no Biblical basis for the American Revolution.

In fact, the spiritual nature of America’s resistance was so clear even to the British that in the British Parliament:

Sir Richard Sutton read a copy of a letter relative to the government of America from a [Crown-appointed] governor in America to the Board of Trade [in Great Britain] showing that. . . . If you ask an American, “Who is his master?” He will tell you he has none – nor any governor but Jesus Christ.²⁸

Such spiritual declarations – confirming what was readily evident even to America’s opponents – certainly are not consistent with what critics inaccurately claim is the Unitarian, Deistic, and Secular Enlightenment rebellion basis of the American Revolution.

Endnotes

¹ Dr. John MacArthur, see his declaration that “the truth of the matter is that our own nation was borne out of a violation of this biblical text.” “The Christian and Government: The Christian’s Responsibility to Government – Part 1,” January 6, 1985, Grace to You, https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/45-97/the-christians-responsibility-to-government-part-1.

² Albert Soto, “The American Revolution Rebellion” A True Church

³ For example, see Dr. Jack Arnold, “Dare You Resist Your Government? Romans 13: 2-4,”IIIM [Third Millennium] Magazine Online, April 16-April 22, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 16, http://cleartheology.com/expo/45Romans/NT.Arnold.Rom.59.html; Dr. John Brug, “The Christian’s Dual Citizenship: Concerning the American Revolution”; Pastor Robert L. Deffinbaugh, “Was the American Revolution Biblically Supported?” August 8, 2008, https://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=6084; etc.

⁴ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845, the first English translation by Thomas Norton was published in London: 1561, the original Latin version was published in 1536), 4:Ch. 20, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xxi.html.

⁵ Martin Luther, Temporal Authority: To What Extent Should it be Obeyed? (1523), https://www.uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/323/texts/luther~1.htm.

⁶ Americanized Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: Belford-Clarke Co., 1890), 6456-6457, s.v. “Huldreich Zwingli.”

⁷ John Harty, The Catholic Encyclopedia. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), “Tyrannicide,” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15108a.htm; Rev. John C. Rager, “Catholic Sources and the Declaration of Independence,” The Catholic Mind, Vol. XXVIII, No. 13, July 8, 1930, https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/catholic-sources-and-the-declaration-of-independence.html.

⁸ J. M. Mathews, The Bible and Civil Government, in a Course of Lectures (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), 231.

⁹ John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Young, 1797), III:210-211.

¹⁰ See, for example, numerous sermons cited in Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), 22-23, 26, 27-28, 34-37, 65-68, 86-87, 89-95,101-104; sermons by Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning the Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers (Boston: 1750), 37-41, Jonathan Ellis, The Justice of the Present War against the French in America, and the Principles that Should Influence us in the Undertaking Asserted: A Sermon Preached to the Soldiers, Sept 22, A.D. 1755. from I Sam. Xviii. 17 (Newport: J. Franklin, 1755), John A. Lidenius, The Lawfulness of Defensive War. A Sermon Preached before the Members of the Church; at Chiechester, in the County of Chester, and Province of Pennsylvania, upon their Association for Defense, February 14, 1756 (Philadelphia: James Chattin, 1756), etc.

¹¹ James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (Boston: J. Williams 1766), 11, 13, 16-18,

¹² John Dickinson, The Political Writings of John Dickinson (Wilmington: Bonsal and Niles, 1801), I:111.

¹³ Samuel Adams, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, ed. William V. Wells (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), I:504.

¹⁴ Jacob Duche, The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties, A Sermon Preached in Christ Church, July 7, 1775. Before the First Battalion of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: James Humphreys, Jr., 1775), 13-14.

¹⁵ John Quincy Adams, An Address Delivered at the Request of the Committee of Arrangements for the Celebrating the Anniversary of Independence at the City of Washington on the Fourth of July 1821 upon the Occasion of Reading The Declaration of Independence (Cambridge: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1821), 28.

¹⁶ Francis Hopkinson, The Miscellaneous Essays and Occasional Writings of Francis Hopkinson, Esq. (Philadelphia: T. Dobson, 1792), I:115-116.

¹⁷ John Adams, Letters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1841), I:152, letter to Abigail Adams, August 14, 1776.

¹⁸ Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning the Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers (New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1968, originally printed in Boston: 1750), 37-41.

¹⁹ The Rev. Peter Powers, Jesus Christ the true King and Head of Government; A Sermon Preached before the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, on the Day of Their First Election, March 12, 1778 at Windsor (Newbury-Port: Printed by John Michael, 1778).

²⁰ The Rev. Peter Powers, Jesus Christ the true King and Head of Government…..March 12, 1778, 18.

²¹ Francis Hopkinson, Miscellaneous Essays and Occasional Writings (1792), I:111-115.

²² James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, ed. Bird Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chuncey, 1804), II:496-497.

²³ Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts. 1776 (Watertown, MA: 1776), 51:III:196-197, April 29, 1776.

²⁴ Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Alonzo Cushing (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), IV:86, “Manifesto of the Continental Congress,” October 30, 1778.

²⁵ Samuel Adams, Writings, ed. Cushing (1904), IV:38, to the Earl of Carlisle and Others, July 16, 1778.

²⁶ Stephen Hopkins, The Grievances of the American Colonies Candidly Examined (London: J. Almon, 1766), 45-48.

²⁷ John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), IX:250, “The Druid,” Number III.

²⁸ Hezekiah Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America (Baltimore: William Ogden Niles, 1822), 198.

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Categories: Articles

Benjamin Rush Dream about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

Endnotes

A Christian Voter Intimidation Letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Futile Intimidation Attempts

The 2010 Election: The News Inside the News

Federal Election Results: An Historic Shift

State Election Results

State Effects on the Federal Congress

State Judicial Races

State Ballot Initiatives

A Few State Disappointments

An Interesting Side Note – “Hollywood Stays Home”

A Big Loser

Some Other Pro-Family Victories

Endnotes

Tea Parties- Same Song, Second Verse

History of Tea Parties

Tea Party Today

Endnotes

Steps for Viewing Candidates Scorecards

David Barton & the ADL

Religious Acknowledgments in the Capitol Visitor Center

Calling Muslims to the Capitol?

The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Explore

Engage

Initiatives

Endnotes

Federal Election Results: An Historic Shift

State Election Results

State Effects on the Federal Congress

State Judicial Races

State Ballot Initiatives

A Few State Disappointments

An Interesting Side Note – “Hollywood Stays Home”

A Big Loser

Some Other Pro-Family Victories

Endnotes

History of Tea Parties

Tea Party Today

Endnotes

QUICK LINKS

OTHER LINKS

SOCIAL LINKS

Explore

Engage

Initiatives