StaddonFamily.com

posted by Donald on 08/26/10

It has been a long time now since I posted, asking the question about Adams’ alleged quoted saying that the Revolutionary War combined the principles of government and the principles of Christianity. Denise, by way of leaving a comment, answered very well. Now how can we apply the relation of religion and government to what we do every day?

The key to understanding government is remembering that authority must be given from above, from God. No one can exercises authority without God originally intending it; He is sovereign; He superintends, as Franklin said, in the affairs of men. He works through kings, presidents, fathers, business leaders, military leaders and church leaders.

What so deserves our attention about early American Government is that those at it’s forefront, after leading the farmer-tradesman army to victory and independence, went on in less than four years (from the Treaty of Paris in the fall of 1783 to the Constitutional Convention in the spring of 1787) to outline a just balance of powers between the government and the governed. What could you further ask for among the virtues of wise leadership than men of principle who of their own accord bestow the powers of freedom on the citizenry? Setting aside self-ambition they ensured a means of government that would last through their children’s time and their grandchildren’s time—indeed an indefinite time, equal only to the length of time which that people could prove to exercise, their own government. Their own government?! Yes, their own government: a very special, personal, day-by-day kind of government: self-government.

In America it is not until self-government falls asleep that the sleeping giant of tyranny may wake up. If we as citizens, in our personal lives, let up on our own self-government, those privileges will end up naturally in the hands of those who first bestowed them.

Here are three quotes that might be worth memorizing for you:

1. “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

Robert C. Winthrop, 
Harvard graduate, US Senator from Massachusetts

2. Freedom is not an alternative to obedience: freedom comes by obedience, obedience to God. The alternative to obedience is tyranny.

-Derived from The Power for True Success

3. “How will you find good? It is not a thing of choice; it is a river that flows from the foot of the Invisible Throne and flows by the path of obedience.”

-George Eliot

Self-government appears in many ways: responsibility, self-control, patience, thriftiness, kindness. Learn to demonstrate these and you will learn to see it and praise it in others.

Now we come to the conclusion. No, it is most likely that Adams didn’t actually say that the War for Independence had “connected in one … the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity”—that was John Wingate Thornton–but , by the faith of our forefathers, what that miraculous war did certainly do was set the stage for nations to see what would happen with a people entrusted authoritatively with their own self-government.

4 Comments » | posted in Politics

posted by Michael on 08/10/10

It is troubling when a nominee like Kagan is considered mainstream. Senator Kit Bond of Missouri knows that “The massive expansion of government power we’ve seen over the last 18 months puts our country at a unique time in history”. His bull’s-eye assessment: “Putting a check on activist government power and adhering to our Constitution is too important to take a chance on a nominee with a lack of judicial experience and history of liberal advocacy.”

Senator Alexander from Tennessee who supported Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court recognized that “Because Ms. Kagan has never been a judge, assessing what kind of Supreme Court Justice she might be requires a close look at her professional conduct – including her six years as the dean of Harvard Law School. In denying military recruiters equal access to Harvard Law students, Ms. Kagan ignored Harvard’s obligations under federal law. Instead, she acted based upon what she thought the law should be. The use of her authority as dean in that way leads me to believe that she would use her authority as a Supreme Court Justice to advance her own policy preferences.”

The vote was close: 63 to 37. At least Justice Kagan seems less liberal than Stevens, who she replaces. Will she uphold the U.S. Constitution? The proof will be seen in the decisions to come.

Supreme Court Justice Oath of Office:

“I [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [title] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Leave a Comment » | posted in Politics

posted by Staddon Family on 08/2/10

The Senate is expected to vote this week on Kagan, Obama’s recent Supreme Court nominee. Since Kagan has never before been a judge, and therefore has no judicial record, how do we know where she stands on the issues? Thanks to many who have done the research for the rest of us, some very startling things have come to light. It turns out she is very pro-homosexual and very anti-2nd Amendment rights. It appears that she is already biased in favor of homosexuals and possibly even harboring hatred against the morally conscientious.

Here is criminologist John Lott’s concerns over Kagan’s anti-gun stance. Severe concerns have also been raised by Americans United for Life regarding Kagan’s record of support for partial birth abortion.

This Senate decision may affect our country for many, many years. Supreme Court Justices are usually in office for life. Take responsibility as an American citizen to call your senators as soon as you possibly can. Politely make it clear that you will not tolerate your representative voting in favor of Kagan for the Supreme Court of the United States. Senator Ben Nelson (Democrat, Nebraska) decided to change his stand and oppose Kagan as a result of hearing from the people of his State. You can find your senators’ phone numbers right here or call the Senate switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for them by name.

5 Comments » | posted in Politics

posted by Michael on 07/22/10

Hillary Clinton got me thinking recently with a decision she made to support a legally binding international treaty to increase regulations on the gun trade. Just what do you think the Administration is up to now?

The disarming of American citizens can be achieved by controlling the distribution of firearms. The best way at the moment to get control of this distribution is through an international treaty that would bypass the legislative process (“government of the people, by the people, for the people”) and subjugate the American people to laws created by foreign nations. Would the American people comply with that kind of insanity? I don’t think so. Remember Virginia’s motto? It is “Thus always to tyrants” with Virtus armed and standing atop a dead tyrant. What if Virginians were to stick to that? What about the famous words of Patrick Henry? “Give me liberty or give me death!” What do you do with a law that makes a good thing illegal, while the law itself is Constitutionally illegal? Article 2 of the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Do Americans value freedom as much as those who have tried to live without it? Why did my grandpa put his life on the line in World War II? Talking about the right to load ammunition and bear arms is talking about the guarantee of a free country. If Mountaineers will always be free, mountaineers will have to be armed. That’s what the 2nd amendment is all about. If you love America, go here.

Let’s think this over. Why should anyone be labeled a criminal just because he owns a weapon? Why did God give horns and hooves to the buffalo, and stingers to the honey bees? What is wrong with parents protecting their families? Why would a government even want to make it difficult for its good, responsible and law abiding citizens to arm themselves? Does the government really think it can completely control all crime so that no one ever has to defend themselves? Do we want the government to have that kind of absolute control over everyone? If that means eliminating guns, it also means eliminating cooking utensils, rocks, and fingers. Anyone who truly favors fighting crime must favor the armed citizen. If we have a crime problem, what we need to ask is why people do not control themselves and respond correctly to difficult situations. So why would some people want Americans helpless? Are the American people entirely untrustworthy? Why should the government be afraid of an armed nation? This level of suffocating restraint without any regard to personal self-control is tyranny. For one thing, governmental force and secular education do not have the capacity to solve a crime problem. Furthermore, a law that banned weapons would only take weapons away from law abiding citizens, the very ones who should be armed. Every month the NRA reports many accounts of citizens properly using firearms to successfully protect their families. Does it seem to you that the TV news tends to only report the actions of lawless people using weapons in lawless ways? Is this by accident?

6 Comments » | posted in Politics

posted by Robert on 07/7/10

I have great respect for State Senator Daniel Webster of Florida, an honorable statesmen, a wise leader, and a loving father. He served so well in the Florida Legislature that several years ago they designated a local highway as the Daniel Webster Western Beltway in recognition of more than 25 years of legislative service.

When I heard that he was running for the U.S. Congress, I was overjoyed. I wish I could move to Florida just to have the privilege of voting for him! Enjoy the following video clip from his campaign.

ElectWebster.com

America is not broken — Washington is.

1 Comment » | posted in Politics