Founding Fathers To Americans: Don’t Forget God

Many argue the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with U.S. law, that the depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandments carved into the architectural structure of the U.S. Supreme Court building only represent one concept of several “early written laws.”

The marble frieze, “Justice the Guardian of Liberty,” located on the Court Building’s eastern pediment, depicts Moses as one of three Eastern law givers (Confucius to Moses’ left, Solon to his right). Some historians argue that by including Moses holding two blank tablets (the Ten Commandments) as part of the frieze, Moses represents only one of three Eastern civilizations whose laws primarily influenced American law.

Image credit: shutterstock.com

Image credit: shutterstock.com

Likewise, others argue that the South and North wall friezes inside the Court’s Chamber where the Justices rule do not emphasize Moses over any other lawgiver. Moses is only one of 18 lawgivers whose images are carved: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses (holding an inscribed tablet), Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, St. Louis, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon.

Yet, above the bench where the justices rule, carved on a marble relief are two men sitting on either side of a tablet on which I through X are carved. The allegorical figures represent “The Power of Government” and “The Majesty of the Law.” The numeric tablet represents the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

Entering the Court’s Chamber from the central hallway of the Supreme Court building are two oak doors on which there are carved two tablets with roman numerals I through X. These numeric tablets represent the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

The images of tablets with inscriptions all depict the same roman numerals I through X, not any other number or letter in any other typeface. The numbers specifically represent the first ten letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which are widely acknowledged and understood as interchangeable with the numbers one through ten (1-10).

Many oppose recognizing the Ten Commandments’ influence on American law. Many also demand that any public displays be removed from public property. Yet the majority of Americans oppose their removal. In fact, according to Pew Research polls, “Americans overwhelmingly support displaying the Ten Commandments on public property, with more than seven-in-ten saying they believe such displays are proper.”

Stephen McDowell of the Providence Foundation clarifies why:

“A NATION’S MONUMENTS AND NATIONAL SYMBOLS REFLECT THE HEART OF THE PEOPLE AND IDENTIFY WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE SOURCE OF THEIR NATION’S GREATNESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS. AMERICA’S MONUMENTS AND SYMBOLS CONTAIN THE DECLARATION THAT THE SOURCE OF OUR BIRTH, LIBERTY, AND GREATNESS IS GOD.”

McDowell surveyed and found numerous biblical inscriptions on government buildings from the Library of Congress, to the U.S. Capitol, the National Archives, the Washington Monument, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, and others.

Interestingly, despite public opposition, the National Park Service repositioned the Washington Monument’s metal cap on public display in order to block visitors from being able to read its inscription: Laus Deo (Praise be to God). It has not, however, covered or removed the blocks embedded in the inside walls of the structure on which numerous references to God are inscribed, including “Holiness to the Lord,” “Search the Scriptures,” “In God We Trust,” “The memory of the just are blessed,” and others.

George Washington undoubtedly would be appalled by the National Park Service’s actions. He himself actually insisted that America as a nation must do more than just publicly acknowledge God. He wrote a proclamation (published in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal on October 17, 1789) in which he emphasized:

“IT IS THE DUTY OF ALL NATIONS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROVIDENCE OF ALMIGHTY GOD, TO OBEY HIS WILL, TO BE GRATEFUL FOR HIS BENEFITS, AND HUMBLY IMPLORE HIS PROTECTION AND FAVOR.”

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and many other presidents concurred with Washington’s directive. They understood that public displays and public acknowledgements of God were not coercive measures. They were instructional expressions of free speech and free worship. National monuments served as reminders, encouragements, and examples of American leaders who publicly emphasized the importance of valuing, relying upon, and honoring God.

No Founding Father argued that America as a nation should forget God. In fact, they argued the opposite.

Further still, they and their predecessors evidenced through their own actions that they opposed any legal prohibition of inscribing biblical verses or expressions on the very structures and monuments they themselves had commissioned to be built.

This column was first published by Constitution.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

What’s Happening In 2015 America Meets Sam Adams’ Criteria For Armed Rebellion

Samuel Adams, one of the fathers of the American Revolution, specified four criteria (conditions) for citizens to determine when armed rebellion is justified to respond to a tyrannical and illegitimate government.

Adams and others of a special committee wrote to the governor of Massachusetts, expressing their disapproval of the Shays Riots. Adams specified four criteria for the justification of armed rebellion, which were printed in a circular letter and reproduced by the Massachusetts Gazette on September 12, 1786.

All four criteria are easily met today, in 2015 America:

1. When laws are no longer made by a legislature elected by the people 

Today, no Senator or Congressman writes the laws they claim to sponsor or vote for or against. Bills are written by lobbyists and staff members of companies, and sometimes legislators’s staff. However, the majority of laws enacted are through regulations created by unelected bureaucrats of federal and state agencies.

2. When our form of government exists without our consent

For every law Congress enacts, 56 rules and regulations are enacted by unelected federal and state agency bureaucrats. In fact, in 2013, 65 bills were signed into law; but federal agencies enacted 3,659 rules and regulationsUnelected regulatory bureaucrats and/or lobbyists write America’s laws, without citizens’ consent and most often against the will of the people.

3. Taxation without representation

Obamacare is one obvious example. Congress, against the will of the people, imposed a tax by mandating that individuals must purchase from a selection of government-classified health insurance policies. Congress intentionally substituted a mandate by imposing a penalty for anyone who fails to comply. In response, the U.S. Supreme Court denied due process to Americans.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is another obvious example. Its numerous scandals evidence egregious abuse of power committed by unelected bureaucrats. Unelected bureaucrats have been targeting and discriminating against citizens by selectively enforcing regulations Congress did not create.

In response to the IRS’ abuse of power, an outraged public submitted a record-setting number of comments expressing their opposition to IRS rules. A Center for Competitive Politics study found that 94 percent of public comments opposed some aspects of proposed IRS rules; 87 percent opposed them outright; and of all participants, opponents outnumbered supporters by a 2:1 margin. Yet, their opposition has not prevented unelected bureaucrats from enforcing laws Congress did not create.

4. When authority is no longer derived from ourselves

The 2014 $1.1 trillion quid pro quo omnibus spending bill is an obvious example. (It was not a budget; Congress has not submitted or passed a budget since 2009). The Washington Post calculated that each legislator who voted for the bill received approximately $322,000 from the finance/insurance/real estate industries PACs and employees of firms in those industries. It writes: “On average, members of Congress who voted yes received $322,000 from those industries. Those who voted no? $162,000. Here’s the split by party. House Speaker John Boehner received the most money for ensuring the bill passed.

One provision of the bill written by Citigroup, ZeroHedge reported, could cost taxpayers nearly “$303 trillion in gross notional derivatives as a result of ‘siloing’ swaps, and their associated risks, in FDIC-insured operating companies.” Taxpayers would again (as they were in 2008) be responsible for bailing out financial institutions for losses they incur from these contracts.

Its editors write:

“WE NOW KNOW WITH CERTAINTY THAT TO A CLEAR MAJORITY IN CONGRESS – ONE CONSISTING OF REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS – THE FUTURE VIABILITY OF WALL STREET IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE WELL-BEING OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

The laws that Congress does pass are written by industry professionals to benefit those industries, not the people they represent in theory only. American citizens, according to Samuel Adams, are justified in rebelling against what the Founders considered an illegitimate, unconstitutional, and tyrannical government ruled by evil men.

Abraham Lincoln warned Americans that they were responsible for losing their freedom. He stated: “America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

The question remains: will Americans heed his warning before it’s too late?

This column was first published by Constitution.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

WATCH This Conservative Just Exposed Every Dirty Detail Of The Dems’ Racist Past

Conservative commentator Bill Whittle believes an important slice of our history has been selectively forgotten by those who do not want Americans to know about the Democratic Party’s racist past. In a video entitled “Pin the Tail on The Donkey,” he offers a history lesson on the subject.

Whittle first notes that it was the Democrats who scorned Republicans for standing up for the rights of African Americans before, during, and after the Civil War. The Republican Party was founded to limit the growth of slavery in the 1850s. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, led the nation through the Civil War, which ended slavery in the 1860s. The party then oversaw the passage of the post-Civil War amendments in the 1860s and 70s, which freed the slaves once and for all, guaranteed them equal protection under the law, and granted them the right to vote.

During this time period, Democrats often referred to the GOP derisively as “The Black Republicans,” says Whittle.

The famous abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass was a proud member of the Republican Party and supported presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. He reputedly said, “I’m a Republican. A black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.”

Whittle states that, after losing on the battlefield and being defeated at the ballot box, southern Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize blacks.

In the years after the war, Democrats proceeded to pass gun control measures in the South to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed slaves so they could not protect themselves against the Klan and their like.

Marriage licences were also instituted by southern Democrats to keep black people from marrying white people, Whittle says. By the late 1800s, Democrats had passed a raft of Jim Crow laws which stayed in place until the 1960s, when Congressional Republicans were instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing them.

Whittle also argues that Democrat big government policies had the effect of enslaving African Americans and others on a type of social welfare plantation.

He contrasts the policies of President Calvin Coolidge, who led the country out of a severe recession in the early 1920s, with President Franklin Roosevelt, who turned the recession of the late 1920s into the decade-long Great Depression of the 1930s. The former instituted tax cuts (from 73 to 24 percent top rate) and controlled government spending, causing the federal government to have budget surpluses and the economy to roar; the latter instituted tax hikes (with the top rate reaching 94 percent) and doubled the national debt, causing the nation to experience a double-dip recession.

The same contrast could be made between the policies implemented under Ronald Reagan (a fan of Coolidge) and Barack Obama (a fan of FDR) and their subsequent economic results.

Whittle quotes President Lyndon Johnson as saying that the social welfare programs instituted during the Great Society in the 1960s “would have n–gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

The overall outcome of the entitlement state initiated under FDR and grown under Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama has been to transform the United States from the world’s largest creditor nation to its largest debtor nation.

As reported by Western Journalism, PJTV’s Alfonzo Rachel made similar points about government entitlement programs enslaving African Americans in a video released in the spring. He said, “Now instead of using blacks to farm cotton, [Democrats] use you to farm votes. And you have been suckered into believing that this off-balanced circle of dependency is [the party] doing something for black folks.”

Rachel offers the example of taxing businesses. The Democrats promise that, by taxing rich, white business owners heavily and making them pay their “fair share,” black people will benefit. But in the end, everyone is hurt because the more money businesses have to pay to the government, the less they have to hire people.

His advice overall to his fellow African Americans: don’t let the Democrats keep you on the victimization plantation.

h/t: BuzzPo

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.

In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.

One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said: “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln; and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861: “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens, who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this: “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually, there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech: “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south; many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution; and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself, is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man allegedly killed nine black people and ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.

The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed: “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional; and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Uses Anniversary of Lincoln’s Assassination To Call GOP Racist

Today marked yet another tax day come and gone. But, it also marked the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination.

Over at MSNBC, Hardball host Chris Matthews chose to use the anniversary as a way to slam the GOP for being a bunch of racists by supporting voter ID laws in 36 states. (Newsbusters points out that Rhode Island’s law was passed by a liberal legislature and governor, but it wasn’t worth mentioning by Matthews because it didn’t fit the narrative.)

“[Lincoln] was killed because he fought and won a war that saved the Union,” Matthews said on Hardball. “He was killed fighting still for the right of freed American slaves to vote. And now the Republican Party he helped start is out there in a systemic effort to keep the children of those freed slaves from voting.”

These ID laws require people to have either: a driver’s license, a state-issued ID card, or a military ID card. Proponents of these laws insist that they are in place to prevent voter fraud – such as voting multiple times – while critics maintain that the laws exist to suppress the minority vote.

If you do not have an ID to vote, that means you also cannot: open a bank account, apply for a job, file for unemployment (or welfare or Medicaid or food stamps or Social Security), buy a home, drive a car, get married, pick up a prescription, or even pick up a pack of smokes.

h/t: Newsbusters

What do you think? Are voter ID laws racist? Or are they a necessary precaution?

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth