THE BIRTH OF CHRIST & THE BIRTH OF AMERICA ARE LINKED By Chuck Baldwin
NewsWithViews.com
As we approach the celebration of Christ’s birth, I am reminded of the words of John Quincy Adams. On July 4, 1837, he spoke these words:
“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? … Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth. That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?”
Adams was exactly right: America’s birth is directly linked to the birth of our Savior. In fact, the United States of America is the only nation established by Christian people, upon Biblical principles, and dedicated to the purpose of religious liberty. This truth is easily observed within America’s earliest history.
America’s forebears first established a written covenant with God as early as November 11, 1620, when they penned The Mayflower Compact. It states in part:
“In the name of God, Amen. … Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”
The sentiments and statements of America’s founders make it clear that this nation has enjoyed a love and appreciation for the rights and freedoms recognized in Natural Law that is unique in the annals of human history. No other people have such a heritage.
One thing America’s founders could not envision was–after they had paid so terrible a price to purchase our liberties–that the time would come when their posterity would be denied the basic freedoms to publicly express their reverence for God. Never could they have imagined that the day would come when citizens of the sovereign states (each with a state constitution protecting religious liberty) would be denied their right to pray in school, or place Nativity scenes on public property, or hang copies of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls.
I am also confident that America’s founders would be completely repulsed by the way the United States has jumped headlong into corporatism, socialism, and globalism. Democrats and Republicans alike have created a central government so large that it would be unrecognizable by any Founding Father. In addition, both Big Business and Big Religion have sold our great country down the proverbial river, as surely as there is a sun in the sky. Truly, our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.
Therefore, at this Christmas season, let us remember well the founding principles of these United States of America. Furthermore, let us renew with vigor the fight for freedom before our liberties and our heritage are gone altogether.
Merry Christmas!
“I am also confident that America’s founders would be completely repulsed by the way the United States has jumped headlong into corporatism, socialism, and globalism”
…..yeah..the pilgrims were so against that …..look at who they leased the Mayflower from before you spout your Christain only philosophy on the rest of us.. Also…do you think God is Blessing amerika today?
Paulie
delivers
Paulie
FTW!
Paulie delivers.
Paulie FTW!
Electric Hellfire…
Backwards:
Good singer in this one. Her outfit is a bonus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYSYKqfDHYA
Embedding disabled.
@ 62
Regarding points A & B: hey, it was late and I was tired!
As for the song… I was thinking perhaps “Highway To Hell” (I love Bon Scott era AC/DC) or something by the Electric Hellfire Club.
Interesting how a posting about Chuck Baldwin has degraded into a thread discussing porn, Peter North, Nina Hartley, 2 Girls/1 Cup and a San Francisco golden showers club.
A) Upgraded, not degraded
B) You forgot Max Hardcore
Diggin graves see, pays my rent for the day
Some hate the image that I must portray
Critics, say “Go to hell” I say “Yeah,
stupid motherfucker I’m already there!”
Fru-strated, mentally aggravated
to be the rebel that society created
I’m good most times but when I’m foul then I’m flagrant
Livin in the shadows like a government agent
Constant Elevation Lyrics by Gravediggaz
BTW, I did not know this:
Fiorito contends his films are legal in Brazil, but authorities in the United States have branded some of his films as obscene and filed charges against Danilo Croce, a Brazilian lawyer living in Florida, listed as an officer of a company distributing Fiorito’s films in the United States. Croce accepted a plea bargain and was sentenced to 3 years of unsupervised probation and forfeiture of $98,000.
I thought Little’s case was the only successful recent obscenity prosecution.
Interesting how a posting about Chuck Baldwin has degraded into a thread discussing porn, Peter North, Nina Hartley, 2 Girls/1 Cup and a San Francisco golden showers club.
If there is a hell (and I am not a Christian or believe in the concept of hell), I suppose that theoretically, I am a candidate. LOL
Gene, I’ll take that on faith. See Nietzsche quote posted by Troll Joseph above for context.
When it comes to Nina.com, on the other hand, I’ll forsake Nietzsche for Reagan: doveryay, no proveryay (trust but verify).
@57
Man’s mouth, you say?
Warning to all …do not click if easily offended:
http://www.blowbuddies.com/gsb.html
Obviously, Jesus never watched “2 Girls, 1 Cup†online.
Of course He did. He watches all!
Obviously, it was watching that very video that made Him say man’s mouth. Girl’s mouth…different story.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true. – Friedrich Nietzsche
“Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ †“
Obviously, Jesus never watched “2 Girls, 1 Cup” online.
kiddledee,
From a casual google search, here is one answer regarding Matthew 15:10-11:
http://www.secretsunsealed.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=94&Itemid=86
Let me know if you are on a setup that won’t play video or sound, and I’ll hunt for a text link, or just put “Matthew 15:10-11” to see what various different people interpret out of that passage.
If you cite chapter and verse on that dream thing, we can find dissenting commentaries on the true meaning of that as well, I’m sure.
Paulie @27: Didn’t Paul have a dream somewhere in which he was starving and God sent angels with a blanket of food, including pigs and some other things jews were not supposed to eat; and God told him that it was all good?
And this: Matthew 15:10-11
“Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ ” “
@ 44
Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re trying to be so good,
They’ll stone ya just a-like they said they would.
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to go home.
Then they’ll stone ya when you’re there all alone.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re walkin’ ‘long the street.
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to keep your seat.
They’ll stone ya when you’re walkin’ on the floor.
They’ll stone ya when you’re walkin’ to the door.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
They’ll stone ya when you’re at the breakfast table.
They’ll stone ya when you are young and able.
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to make a buck.
They’ll stone ya and then they’ll say, “good luck.”
Tell ya what, I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, they’ll stone you and say that it’s the end.
Then they’ll stone you and then they’ll come back again.
They’ll stone you when you’re riding in your car.
They’ll stone you when you’re playing your guitar.
Yes, but I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, they’ll stone you when you walk all alone.
They’ll stone you when you are walking home.
They’ll stone you and then say you are brave.
They’ll stone you when you are set down in your grave.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Fair enough, and I agree.
Hartley’s page is NSFW, so no live link. It’s nina dot com.
It provides the following contact info:
Book Nina Hartley
If you want to book me in a video or photo shoot or personal appearance, contact Lisa
[email protected]?subject=book request nina hartley
If you want to book me for a serious lecture, contact Greg Bura at Wolfman Productions: Greg Bura
mailto:[email protected]?subject=nina hartley lecture request
If you want to book me for a workshop, bridal shower (I give a mean sex-ed class!), or bride/groom sex-ed lessons, contact me here:
mailto:[email protected]?subject=workshop request
Her bio page mentions that she is currently married, and swings.
@ 47
I’m not a pornographer. I just happen to admire Nina Hartley.
I am aware of her leftism and it doesn’t really bother me as there are so many more things in life than mere politics.
By the way, Stagliano is active in the LP. I was thinking of lobbying him to get the Free Speech Coalition to take up Paul Little’s case, but I think he wants to shy away from it because he thinks Little makes the whole industry look bad. See
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/free-max-hardcore/
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/12/taking-up-steves-challenge-part-1.html
Probably not too hard to arrange meeting Hartley. If you want to produce a film with her, you’ll have to pay her, of course (I don’t know if she’s under contract with anyone right now, or how much she charges), but you may be able to make a profit.
She’s a hardcore leftist, in case you care at all. Marilyn Chambers was the VP candidate of a libertarian spinoff party in 2004.
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/12/some-random-thoughts-on-religion-and.html
Blasphemers, rather.
The just punishment for blashphemers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU
I just read the Wikipedia entry for Peter North. Heroic is an understatement! Now if I can only meet Nina Hartley….. *sigh*
Gene, see link in comment 15. Close to one hundred films a year for well over twenty years, and still blasting away. Heroic!
Peter North: now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time. Blast from the past!
I like the idea, and I’d go for two out of three, but I’m too bourgeois to complete the trifecta.
I’m thinking of starting a new blog called TRUE NORTH. Tagline: Combining the economic views of Gary North with the social mores of Peter North, and chucking Ollie North out the window.
If 5-10 people want to write there, it’s going up. I’m not having much luck getting people to sign up and blog at Next Free Voice, but maybe they’ll do that if we start a new blog from scratch rather than piggybacking off what was my existing personal blog? Worth trying, if there is interest.
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2008/12/the-constitution-party-like-the-gop-only-more-papery.html
Well, I did most of my growing up in ghettoes, so many of the schools I attended compared unfavorably to zooparks. I understand they have gotten considerably worse in the twenty years since.
If I wanted my daughter barefoot and pregnant at 16 (as I do not), I know just where to send her. Scary.
Wow, yeah, the one in my neighborhood spends most of its time trying to control the little monkeys and doesn’t even manage that. Reason number 11292 to be homeschooling.
Catholic Trotskyist // Dec 23, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Private schools are usually superior, but public schools are necessary for the preservation of civilized society.
Public schools necessary for the preservation of civilized society? *chuckle*
I would be interested in knowing your definition of “civilized”, because it must differ from mine, as I see public schools as a breeding ground for uncivil behavior.
A very different take from North’s fellow Misesian, the great Jeff Tucker:
This is really a great article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker117.html
Oh, and I will never get tired of linking to this everytime someone mentions theocratic nonsense:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
Stick all of the nuts in one basket. Let them have their stoning society
LJ, they will be quick to point out that THEY are merely being democratic. Afterall, not everybody can afford a jail cell or electric chair. But everybody can afford a stone.
Pacem en Terris
That stuff is absolutely scary. Total religious fascism.
That’s one of the biggest reasons I was worried about Ron Paul’s “support” of Chuck Baldwin, the movement for Ron Paul was flooded with crazy theocrats immediatly afterward. And people who months before would of scoffed at the idea were saying all of a sudden that gay rights and the 1st amendment were somehow no longer releveant.
I don’t care what the Founding Fathers said. They were mostly nothing more than a bunch of war criminals, especially Washington and Hamilton. Adams and Jefferson weren’t so bad though.
Private schools are usually superior, but public schools are necessary for the preservation of civilized society. I argue from the leftist perspective. We don’t like the ultranationalist indoctrination, and as a Catholic I don’t like the atheist indoctrination either, but we have to ally with these people against the Christian Reconstructionists and Libertarians who don’t want public schools.
Some good ones there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_(Christian)
“In winning a nation to the gospel, the sword as well as the pen must be used” (Gary North, Christian Reconstructionism, p. 198).
The quotes GE provided are further referenced as;
Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism
p. 87
http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21f2_47e.htm
“The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right”, The Failure of the American Baptist Culture
pp. 24-25
http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21ce_47e.htm
The wikipedia article on Gary North article defines reconstructionism:
Most Christian Reconstructionists hold to a type of Postmillennialism that holds that Jesus will return to earth only after Trinitarian Christianity has become the religion of the majority of the planet, with God’s moral law as the civil standard for society. They believe that Old Testament moral and civil laws, such as those against adultery, sodomy, and murder, should be presumed binding unless the New Testament says otherwise; this belief they call theonomy.
BTW, does the New Testament repeal Old Testament dietary laws anywhere explicitly? I know there are some minority of Christians who do not think so.
@25, Wikipedia
RE 7,
What is the source of the North quotes?
Private education has been proven to be far superior. Public education has proven to be used as a propaganda tool for the state. so why?
three groupings
ultranationalists that want ther kids to learn to be proud of America. blah blah blah
leftists that believe every child deserves an education
and the rest… bahh bahh
that’s how I think of them.
Like all industries,
consumer demand creates incentive. you don’t want to sell drugs if noone wants to buy. that makes no sense whatsoever
then, as you should know, the individuals and companies do the best they can to supply that demand in exchange for cash
employer reinvests in business and expands, which leads to needing more workers. that’s how the economy grows.
potential workers market companies to sell their labor to. if there’s an agreement, the worker is hired. if the worker is ever unhappy, he/she can leave whenever they want. pretty straight forward
innovation comes with competition. the supply led to more supply, more supply led to competition between the businesses for the marketshare, because companies are always looking to grow and do better, but not all companies will, that’s how consumers vote with their money – economic democracy
the companies that can’t innovate die off. the innovators succeed.
that’s when we get new technologies, when companies advance and invest in research in order to appeal to the demand and make some gains on market share.
when the government gets involved, it just ruins everything and picks favorites, then soon we’re left with a locked up industry with a handful of “industry partners” aka fascism
The founders would not have wanted tax funded schools, either, which Baldwin neglects to mention. Jefferson wrote that such schools would become mere propaganda mills for those who control the state.
Whether he wrote it, I have not been able to verify, but Jefferson was a big promoter of publicly-funded primary schools. Even libertarian hero Nock admitted this:
When Mr. Jefferson was revising the Virginia Statutes in 1797, he drew up a comprehensive plan for public education.
From here.
Much better article on similar topic:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts262.html
Baldwin sucks!
@13
Stick all of the nuts in one basket. Let them have their stoning society
Wikipedia sez:
Christian Reconstructionists describe their view of public ethics by the term, “Theonomy” (the Law of God governs); while their critics tend to label them “Theocratic” (God governs). The notable differences are that “theocracy” is usually thought of as totalitarian and involving no distinction between church and state, while Reconstructionists claim that “theonomy” is broadly libertarian and maintains a distinction of sphere of authority between family, church, and state. For example, enforcement of moral sanctions under theonomy is done by family and church government, and sanctions for moral offenses is outside the authority of civil government (which is limited to criminal matters, courts and national defense). However, in some areas the application of theonomy could increase the authority of the civil government; prominent advocates of Christian Reconstructionism have written that according to their understanding, God’s law approves of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for propagators of idolatry, active homosexuals, adulterers, practitioners of witchcraft, and blasphemers, and perhaps even recalcitrant youths
“a group that believes that after crisis/apocalypse/etc society should be re-established on the Old Code, complete with stonings and such?”
VirtualGalt, not exactly. Christian Reconstructionists are post-millennialists. They see a gradual Christianizing of the world prior to the return of Christ. It does not rely on apocalypse first
Oh. Those were the ones I was talking about. 😉
Not to mention classy, LOL.
Apparently, from looking at wikipedia, there were/are at least two other prominent Peter Norths:
# Peter North (academic) (Sir Peter North), former principal of Jesus College, Oxford and Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford
# Peter John North, Canadian politician
Very classic.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000561/
Yes, North is a prominent reconstructionist. Check google, wikipedia, etc.
When it comes to well-known Norths, I’d combine the economic views of Gary with the social mores of Peter, and chuck Ollie out altogether. Are there any other prominent Norths that I am forgetting?
Isn’t North a Christian Reconstructionist, i.e., a group that believes that after crisis/apocalypse/etc society should be re-established on the Old Code, complete with stonings and such?
Ron Paul’s associations/flirtings with that crowd made me very nervous. I say this as one of the folks who would most likely be stoned early on. And not in the good way.
“offensive” was the wrong word. But whatever. I’m equally not offended.
“the views you quote are far worse than the average Christian, I think”
Being an average Christian, I’d have to agree.
His Y2K alarmism was off the deep end. I like his writing style as well, but the views you quote are far worse than the average Christian, I think.
North is just about the best on personal finance and very good on economics. I like his writing style. Of course, I don’t read his theological stuff. Being a staunch atheist, I don’t see much more offensive about his views than those of the average Christian, and those views have nothing to do with the soundness of his financial and economic insights.
Makes one wonder why Lew Rockwell features North so prominently – although I grant that North often makes good points on economic issues.
Here’s what Gary North says on the subject:
And
It’s only “religious liberty†when they are free to practice their own beliefs and shove it down the throats of others.
It’s “religious persecution†when others of differing faiths (or no faith at all) dare speak out.
Exactly.
And Gene Trosper is correct as well; comment went up while I was composing mine.
Jim Davidson and GE are correct.
I’ll resist the temptation to use “Birth of a Nation” quips.
Lincoln, so far as I know, called himself a Christian, never an atheist, but then one would have to in public life in those days (and even to a large extent today – the only thing that has changed is that Catholics and Jews are much more tolerated, and that’s only since the 1960s)
It’s only “religious liberty” when they are free to practice their own beliefs and shove it down the throats of others.
It’s “religious persecution” when others of differing faiths (or no faith at all) dare speak out.
More liberal B.S. from Lincolnian Centralist Chuck Baldwin. He quotes Federalist arch-enemy of liberty John Adams and brags about a “nation” being established by Christians. No, the NATION was established by the evil atheist Lincoln. The states were founded by Christians, yes, but for the purpose of “religious liberty”? Hardly. Many states had State Churches. And why is Baldwin such an enthusiast for collectively held “public” property? Yeah, Baldwin criticizes the growth of the central government, but how can he be trusted when opening his statement with a quote from Big Government centralist John Adams? Is Alexander Hamilton, a founding father, really rolling in his grave? Only out of happiness.
Baldwin neglects to mention all the communist or communitarian nonsense spewed in the Mayflower compact which made for so much suffering in the first year of the colony. Nuts.
The founders would not have wanted tax funded schools, either, which Baldwin neglects to mention. Jefferson wrote that such schools would become mere propaganda mills for those who control the state. Again, nuts.
How many of the “monuments” to the Ten Commandments were placed on courthouse lawns and in other public places to promote the film? Baldwin should be aware of this point.