The Declaration of Independence and Its References to God

[I’ve put the references to God in bold.]

The first sentence of our Declaration of Independence is:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Declaration’s penultimate sentence is:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And the Declaration’s final sentence is:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Isn’t it obvious that our nation, as a whole, does not think this way anymore?  And isn’t it likewise obvious that our nation as a whole has become hostile to those citizens within it who do still think this way?

I say this to encourage those of you who still think the way the founders did.  It is not you who have abandoned principle for pleasure.  It is not you who have bathed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the colors of a morally decadent political lobby.

Blessed is David Daleiden, and Woe to the Nation That Persecutes Him

Opening paragraph:

A grand jury convened to investigate whether a Houston Planned Parenthood clinic had sold the organs of aborted fetuses on Monday cleared the clinic and instead indicted the undercover videographers behind the allegations, surprising the officials who called for the probe and delighting supporters of the women’s health organization.

This latest development in the Planned Parenthood scandal is not merely wrong – it is bizarrely and cruelly wrong.  By this logic, the person who calls the police to report that a crime is taking place can be prosecuted for committing the crime.

Planned Parenthood, with the complicity of the mainstream media, has continued to deny what is obvious to anyone who has watched the Daleidon videos: that Planned Parenthood negotiated the price of body parts it was selling.  The claim that the videos are “heavily-edited” is ridiculous given that the full unedited videos were posted at the same time as the shorter versions – a degree of disclosure that mainstream media do not achieve in their own undercover work.  (How often does 60 Minutes post the full unedited versions of its exposes?)

God cannot continue to protect a nation that will prosecute and persecute its truth tellers, but He will honor the David Daleiden’s of this world.

(4 minute-read; 1,076 words)

Source: Planned Parenthood cleared, but 2 indicted over videos – Houston Chronicle

What Does Conservatism Have To Do with God?

Conservatism transcends any individual or organization, because it’s ultimately about the God-inspired belief that we are destined to be free.  –  Craig Shirley

Craig Shirley (1956-) is a historian whose works include Reagan’s Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It AllRendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America, and Last Act: The Final Years and Emerging Legacy of Ronald Reagan.

German Refugee Camps Prove Dangerous for Christians

An asylum is supposed to be a place of protection.  Yet Muslim migrants are threatening Christian migrants in German asylum centers.  Here’s an excerpt of the article:

 It appears that little progress is being made in protecting the Christians, as many are still suffering brutal attacks and some have even returned to the Middle East.  Daniil wrote: “Many Christians who came from the Middle East are suffering from such a strong harassment that they want to come back home, because their situation there seems to them a lesser evil as compared to the circumstances at German refugee accommodation centers.”  Others, particularly converts from Islam who face an increased threat of violent attacks, have taken to sleeping outside the centres rather than access their food and shelter, he said.

Adding insult to injury, the German government apparently will not help these Christians because they are Christians but would be willing to help them if they were homosexuals:

Meanwhile a British Home Office Minister has told a Catholic Peer that the government will not discriminate on grounds of religion when helping refugees from Iraq and Syria.  Lord Alton wrote to both the Home Office and the Prime Minister expressing concern over the government’s policy of taking in Muslims from “formal camps” along the border of Syria while ignoring displaced Christians — most of whom are not living in such camps thanks to the threat of persecution — and cited the government’s willingness to prioritise gay people as a vulnerable group. A “total annihilation” of Christians was underway in the region, he said.  Home Office Minister Lord Bates responded to his pleas with a letter informing him that the government would not “discriminate” on the grounds of religion. The Prime Minister, meanwhile, is yet to reply.

(2-minute read; 552 words)

Source: Christians ‘Frequently’ Suffer ‘Injuries and Threats of Death’ in German Asylum Centres – Breitbart

The AP Does Not Seem to Know American History

Here’s the lead paragraph in this very short Associated Press article:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country’s constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.

Is the AP so ignorant of the country’s constitutional traditions that they think Scalia is making news by stating such a position?

It’s clear from America’s founding documents that our founders wanted to do without a state church such as England had (i.e., the Church of England) but it is just as clear that they had no intention of doing without God or religion.

What were the reporter and editor associated with this article doing in their American history classes?

(a 1-minute read; 128 words)

Source: SCALIA DISMISSES CONCEPT OF RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY IN SPEECH – from The Associated Press