Monthly Archives: February 2020

AMERICA’S CHRISTIAN HERITAGE

Was America founded as a Christian nation or conceived as a secular state.

That question has been argued in the courts, the classrooms, and on cable  TV for the past few decades, and it still causes heated debate wherever it is raised. Secularists claim that there is no evidence for America’s Christian roots and deny the evidence presented. Most American’s, however, still believe that our nation owes its existence and its prosperity to our Founder’s allegiance to Christianity its teachings.

America stands alone as the longest enduring constitutional republic.          But any nation that forgets its roots cannot long endure. Even one of America’s most “progressive” presidents, Woodrow Wilson, acknowledged, “A nation    which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is    today, nor what it is trying to do.”

The question that we must answer is, “What is America trying to do today?” Will we forsake the principles of our Christian heritage and abandon our forefather’s aims to establish a place where freedom reigns and the rights of every man, women, and child are protected by a Constitution inspired by the principles of Christianity?

Get the facts. Get the truth. Discover America’s unique Christian heritage – and why it’s worth defending.

The Bible is the most often cited source in Founding era political documents. President Andrew Jackson said in reference to the Bible: “That book, Sir, is the Rock upon which our republic rests.”

President Calvin Coolidge stated: “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.”

In 1982, Newsweek magazine published an article, “How the Bible Made America,” which concluded that “historians are discovering that the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding Document.”

Nevertheless, modern secularists claim that our nation’s founding was completely divorced from religion. The ACLU contends, “The Founders did not see law as biblically-based…. Neither the Ten Commandments nor biblical law get mentioned anywhere in the debates and publications surrounding the founding documents.” Likewise, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State claims that “the U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document….” Books, such as The Godless Constitution or The Myth of a Christian Nation, are devoted to painting a secular view of our nation’s founding.

The Bible’s Role in Founding America

Political philosophers Donald S. Lutz and Charles Hyneman set out to investigate the sources of our nation’s Founding era political literature. After reviewing an estimated 15,000 written documents from the period between 1760 and 1805, professors Lutz and Hyneman determined that the Bible was, by far, the most cited source, comprising some 34% of all quotations. In fact, the Bible was cited four times as often as the next most commonly referenced source.

As for the ACLU’s claim that America’s founding documents do no mention biblical law, this study showed that the book of the Bible most commonly cited was, in fact, the one that contains the majority of the laws given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. “Deuteronomy is cited more that John Locke or anyone else.” Noted Professor Lutz.

Significantly, the next most commonly cited sources came from the political philosophers Baron Charles Montesquieu, Sir William Blackstone, and John Locke – each of whom encouraged the incorporation of biblical law into civil law.

  • Montesquieu, in his classic 1748 treatise, The Spirit of the Laws, “We owe to Christianity, in government, a certain political law.”
  • Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote, “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws.”
  • Locke, in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, stated, “Laws … must be made according to the general Laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive Law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”

Scripture-Saturated Thinking

As Dr. D. James Kennedy noted, “The Constitution is largely the product of Christian men with a biblical worldview.”

James McHenry, a Constitution signer from Maryland, held such a high view of God’s revelation of Scripture that he proclaimed, “The Holy Scriptures … can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness.”

Their Scripture-saturated thinking led our Founders to follow biblical principles in the establishment of America’s governmental form and structure. They feared the consolidation of too much power into the hands of any one man or entity, believed the words of the Prophet Jeremiah, who declared that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked….”

James Madison saw the implications of this clearly, and in arguing for the ratification of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, he stated, “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government …. If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Madison proposed a “separation of powers,” dividing the government into three separate branches – an idea that mirrored the three functions of government ascribed to the Lord in Isaiah 33:22: “For the Lord is our Judge [judicial], the Lord is our lawgiver [legislative], the Lord is our King [executive].”

God – Given, Not Government Granted

Although we associate the Declaration of Independence with the proclamation that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” the next sentence of the Declaration explains that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” Futhermore, it asserts that governments are instituted in order to secure the rights that flow – not from men or documents – but solely from our Creator. Thus idea is likewise woven into the Constitution.

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution addresses this issue at the onset, explaining – in language similar to the Declaration – that the document was adopted to “secure the blessings of liberty.” The framers of the Constitution recognized that neither they, nor the government they were establishing, could create the blessings of liberty. Rather, they wrote the Constitution in order to form a government that would acknowledge that its task is to secure those

blessings, which come from a higher source – Almighty God.

The Constitution gave deference to America’s Christian tradition. For example, in Article I, Section 7, when speaking of the legislative process, the Constitution specifies that the President has ten days to sign a bill into law, “Sundays excepted.” Why does the Constitution exclude Sundays? The Founders wanted to ensure that the Christian Sabbath was honored by the nation’s government. To this day, the Sabbath is observed by the various departments of government.

Our “Guiding Geniuses”

The evidence proves that our nation was founded with reverence for the principles of Scripture. Our presidents and political leaders have continued to recognize the importance of maintaining that reverence. President Franklin D. Roosevelt told Americans:

We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic…. [W]here we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.”

While speaking with a reporter from Time magazine, former Chief Justice Earl Warren stated:

I believe no one can read the history of our country… without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses…. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it.”

Dr. D. James Kennedy author of What if America Were A Christian Nation Again, wrote, “Our nation was founded upon the principles of the Bible and a reliance upon Almighty God.” Indeed, one would have to ignore a great deal of America’s history to deny the central role the Scriptures had in our nation’s founding.

 

By: Sam Kastensmidt

Christianity and the American Constitution

Until well into my life-time, the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that the United States was a Christian nation. In believing that, they did not desire the persecution of other religions, nor did they want to see people forced to become Christians, nor did they believe that one Christian denomination should be favored at the expense of others. They rejected the concept of one Christian denomination functioning as an established national Church, as the Churches of England and Scotland still do today in Great Britain.

But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states. When other people’s religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme. People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States. This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason cited below, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity.

Two parts of the Constitution are often cited as evidence against this historic understanding of the role of Christianity in American public life:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 6

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Constitution of the United States of America, The Bill of Rights, Amendment I

Yet this same Constitution reflects a Christian understanding of morality:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7

The Historical Understanding of Christianity and the Constitution

“Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment to it . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private religious rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . .The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

[Justice Joseph Story (who served on the Supreme Court from 1811-1845) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2 Vol. 2:593-95, 2nd Ed. Boston: Little Brown (1905)]

Justice Story’s understanding reflects the thinking of the framers of the Constitution, who expressed unbridled faith in God in the Declaration of Independence:

“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 entitles them . . .

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .

“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.” (emphases mine.)

Such an understanding of the foundation of the American law was still reflected in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court just over one hundred years ago. Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]

A distinctively Christian view of the law is also reflected in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890):

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho . . . It was never intended or supposed that the (First) amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.” (emphasis mine.)

The Constitution and Blue Laws

What does the reference to Sunday in Article I, Section 7 above [“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) . . .”] constitute? It reflects the thinking that underlies what are commonly called “Blue Laws” and demonstrates that the framers of the Constitution did not have a non-theistic, abstract concept of law. The federal courts, in striking down state laws about Sunday, have done so recognizing that these laws reflect a commitment to a Christian understanding of the Ten Commandments:

“The parentage of these laws is the Fourth Commandment; and they serve and satisfy the religious predispositions of our Christian communities.” (The Supreme Court’s 1961 ruling on four separate cases, challenging Sunday closing laws: McGowan v. Maryland; Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown v. McGinley; Braunfeld v. Brown; and Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Supermarket) Article I, Section 7 demonstrates that the Moral Law of God, as understood by the followers of the Christian faith, is the foundation of our Civil Laws.

Religious Tests

While the framers of the Constitution were absolutely opposed to a national, established Church, they understood that in order for people’s words to be believed in court, they had to believe in God and future rewards and punishments in the world to come. At the time of the ratification of the federal constitution, most states had constitutionally defined, basic sets of beliefs that were necessary to be held by those who took oaths or held office. These were not seen to be in violation of the national constitution. As but one example, a person may note Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, written in its original form by Benjamin Franklin and others:

“Religious Freedom

“Section 3. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

“Religion

“Section 4. No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (emphasis mine.)

In early America the very understanding of the word “oath” meant that the person taking it believed in God.

Oath: “A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.”

Webster’s Dictionary (1828)

This understanding is reflected in how “Article 6” was explained in the ratifying conventions. For example, one may consider the words of James Iredell at North Carolina’s ratifying convention:

e North Carolina State Ratifying Convention                                                                             Wednesday, July 30, 1788

‘According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments, according to that form which will bind his conscience most.” It was long held that no oath could be administered but upon the New Testament, except to a Jew, who was allowed to swear upon the Old. According to this notion, none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded. At length, by the operation of principles of toleration, these narrow notions were done away. Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments . . . (Mr. Iredell describes a British court case involving a man from India who was neither a Christian nor a Jew and then concluded.) It appeared that, according to the tenets of this religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally considered that, in administering an oath, it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury could not be dreaded.’ (emphases mine.)

[Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d., Volume 5, Amendment I (Religion), Document 52.]

 The Establishment Clause

Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to a group of Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut states that the purpose of the First Amendment was to build “a wall of separation between church and state.” Yet what President Jefferson meant by this wall is patently obvious from the weight of historical evidence cited above: namely, that this did not mean that there could be no point of contact between church and state. Civil governments have all kinds of laws that churches must obey: building codes, fire safety codes and zoning ordinances. None of these violate the liberty of churches to worship God according to their own liberty of conscience. Furthermore, there are times when the members of ecclesiastical bodies are simply unable to decide issues without submitting to the judgment of civil courts. A prime example of this would be contentions over the ownership of the church’s property.

____________________________________________________________________________

Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter

Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction — his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical events as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. As president, he discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion in the final draft of the letter sent to the Danbury Baptists, though it was not actually deleted in Jefferson’s draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon his knowledge that the letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, Jefferson deleted the block, he noted in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.

This is a transcript of the final letter as stored online at the Library of Congress:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation on behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed)Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Thomas Jefferson’s phrase in 1802 must be understood in light of what he said in his “Second Inaugural Address,” in 1805:

“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”

Snippets of Thomas Jefferson’s “First Inaugural Address,” in 1801

“ . . . the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.”

“And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.”

____________________________________________________________________________

Christian people are free to influence legislation that is in keeping with the moral principles of Christianity, and Christian parents are duty bound to see to it that their children are educated in light of Christian principles and morality. A godless educational system is a dreadful curse to American society, the very idea of which would have been abjured by the founders of our nation.

Deuteronomy 6:4-7 New King James Version (NKJV)

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.

 

Bob Vincent

Bible Prophecy & Trump By James Warden

The world is uneasy at the United States’ election of Donald Trump as its forty-fifth president. One could not help but take notice at his meteoric ascendency to the presidency after publicly breaking every norm and social mores that polite society holds dear. The name “Donald” means “world ruler”, and no he is not the antichrist, but he is a man of destiny. Open a King James Bible and read Daniel chapter 8 with a dictionary and you cannot help but see that he is the prophesied king of the west who “at the time of the end” will fulfill the prophecy in making his nation “very great. (Daniel 8:4) “I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great.” Televangelists are failing to inform their audiences of this prophecy that once served to predict the rise of Alexander the Great, as a mighty western Grecian king, who would conquer the Mideast; that no one could withstand. He put Europe on the map as a force to be reckoned with. The prophecy states in itself that it will again serve “at the time of the end” to identify a king of the west with the disposition of a “he goat” that no nation will be able to withstand as he makes his nation “very great” prior to the rise of four other nations out of whom the antichrist will rise “in the latter times, whom Daniel calls “the little horn. (Daniel 8:9) “And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land.”

Daniel was famous for interpreting “the handwriting on the wall” in the kingdom of Babylon called Iraq today. This is the same Daniel of the lion’s den who wrote of a prophetic vision he had in front of an Iraqi river that was designated for an “appointed time”“the time of the end. His dual purposed vision points out that in the end times a “strong” leader of the west, whom Daniel identified as “king” with the character of a Billy goat will be known for his stubborn personality. The prophet wrote that this king of the west calling him in parable a he goat who will be moved with “choler. Webster’s defines choler as “a ready disposition to irritation. 2) Irascible marked by a hot temper and easily provoked to anger. Oxford dictionary defines “being moved with choler as “a peevish temperament easily provoked to anger. Daniel forecast that “at the time of the end” this king of the west will “be moved with choler with his ire stirred against Persia, called Iran since 1936 (Daniel 8:5). The first portion of Daniel eight is in parable form describing the western leader as launching an air attack as a “he goat” whose “feet touched not the ground” as it tackled “the ram having two horns. (Daniel 8:5) “And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. The parable is revealed later in the chapter describing the “two horns” as the kings of Media and Persia/Iran. Daniel prophesied that “at the time of the end” a king of the west will trample the leaders of Iraq and Iran into the dust (Daniel 8:7) “And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him;”. On September 11, 2001, a king of the west was caught flat-footed when he was reading a children’s book “My Pet Goat” to school kids in Florida, when his nation was air attacked as. Later, this western leader, President George W. Bush under his motto “Stay the course” initiated an unprovoked attack on Iraq in a war named “Iraqi Freedom” leading to its dictator (king according to Daniel) Saddam Hussein being toppled in death in 2003. This was the first stage of Daniel’s prophecy.

Presently, in 2017, this war still endures, because Daniel predicted that the West’s attack near the territory of Media conquered by Alexander the Great must also topple Persia’s Iran’s leader. However, when this he goat king from the west defeats Iran Persia, Daniel writes that his nation will become “very great. When “the king of the West, destroys this second king being Iran’s leader, then his nation will become “very great” according to Daniel 8:4, 4 “I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great. As the world reels in amazement at the election of Donald Trump, the prophet Daniel wrote regarding kings he was prophesying about and dealing with was 17 ‘This decision is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones, in order that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, gives it to whomever He will, and sets over it the lowest of men. (Daniel 4:17) Donald Trump has come to the kingdom for such as time as this.

Country of Freedom by Anonymous.

Country of freedom, be free in thy heart:
Free from the shackles of prisoning pride,
Free from the liar’s contemptible art,
Free from allurements that tempt thee aside,
Free from the crafty and treacherous guide,
Free from the ravening greed of the mart,
Free from the snares that in opulence hide,—
Country of freedom be free in thy heart!

Country of freedom, find freedom for all:
Freedom for thinkers’ adventurous quest,
Freedom for greatness to spring from the small,
Freedom for better to grow to the best,
Freedom for justice’s rigorous test,
Freedom for progress in hut and in hall,
Freedom for labor’s unwearying zest,—
Country of freedom, be free for them all!

Country of freedom, be free for the earth:
Over the bloody and desperate main,
Far in the regions of darkness and dearth,
Challenge the tyrant’s unmerciful reign,
Pierce to the heart of his evil domain,
Win for thy brothers the lands of their birth,
Shatter the prison and sever the chain,—
Country of freedom, be free for the earth!

 

MY NATIVE LAND BY SIR WALTER SCOTT

My Native Land

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land!

Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,

As home his footsteps he hath turn’d

From wandering on a foreign strand!

If such there breathe, go, mark him well;

For him no Minstrel raptures swell;

High though his titles, proud his name,

Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;

Despite those titles, power, and pelf,

The wretch, concentred all in self,

Living, shall forfeit fair renown,

And, doubly dying, shall go down

To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,

Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)

 

Let America Be America Again Langston Hughes – 1902-1967

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There’s never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this “homeland of the free.”)

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one’s own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I’m the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That’s made America the land it has become.
O, I’m the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home—
For I’m the one who left dark Ireland’s shore,
And Poland’s plain, and England’s grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa’s strand I came
To build a “homeland of the free.”

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we’ve dreamed
And all the songs we’ve sung
And all the hopes we’ve held
And all the flags we’ve hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay—
Except the dream that’s almost dead today.

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people’s lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!