By Chuck Baldwin, former Presidential Candidate

As we approach Independence Day, it behooves us to recall the principles of
America’s founding, especially in light of the ongoing attempt by today’s
political and commercial leaders to merge the United States into a
hemispheric government. In fact, the clarion call for independence is just
as fundamental, just as revolutionary as it was 233 years ago.

Regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams said,
“[Independence Day] will be the most memorable epoch in the history of
America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding
generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated
as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It
ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports,
guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to
the other, from this time forward forevermore.”

Adams went on to say, “You will think me transported with enthusiasm, but I
am not. I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost
us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet
through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory; I can
see that the end is more than worth all the means, that posterity will
triumph in that day’s transaction, even though we should rue it, which I
trust in God we shall not.”

Indeed, the signers of America’s Declaration of Independence endured the
sacrifice of both toil and blood. Pertaining to the lives of the signers,
David Limbaugh writes, “Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of
Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were
captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost
wives, sons or entire families. One lost his thirteen children. Two wives
were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of
manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes
completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned.”

Yes, America’s Declaration of Independence, which is our nation’s birth
certificate, was purchased at a very high price. Rightly did its primary
author, Thomas Jefferson, invoke God’s name no less than four times in the
Declaration. Without God, our struggle for independence and freedom would
surely have failed.

Jefferson, along with the vast majority of America’s founders, knew that
freedom was, first, the gift of God, not the accomplishment of men. He
further understood that man’s law must be subordinate to the natural laws of
God.

Therefore, with an appeal to Heaven for the “rectitude of [their]
intentions,” America’s Founding Fathers courageously forged a document that
would put their own lives at risk, but would also change the course of
history.

The question now is, “How long can we maintain our nation’s independence?”
The forces of global government seem to dominate both major parties in
Washington, D.C., most corporate boardrooms, and most newsrooms.

In fact, hemispheric or regional government never had more powerful and
committed allies than former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama. Mark my words: if and when
America loses its independence, it will have been these Presidents that led
the way in making it happen.

If the United States is going to maintain its independence and freedom much
beyond the year 2010, it will only be because millions of freedom-loving
Americans (and the governments of the States in which they reside) are
willing to fight for it.

Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826. Daniel Webster
gave the eulogy for both men on August 2 of that year. Included in his
remarks on that notable day were these words: “It [the Declaration of
Independence] is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God, it shall
be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and independence forever.”

To Webster’s words, I say a hearty AMEN! I promise no loyalty to the North
American Union, the United Nations, or any other brand of global government.
When the day comes that I am required to submit to any form of global
authority, I will be an outlaw. There is no freedom without independence,
and there is no independence without eternal vigilance. To my dying breath I
will say with Daniel Webster, “Independence now, and independence forever!”

*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:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090701.html

By James R. Patrick, Founder of The MacArthur Institute
Excerpted from the “Foundations of Liberty” Series

An Overview of “The New Deal”

“He has great imagination. . .  If he had been President at the time when the Treasury was overflowing, he would have gone down in history as the greatest builder since the world began,” so stated interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes in 1934 of Franklin D. Roosevelt. ¹

Former President Herbert Hoover did not agree.  He stated, “Along with currency manipulation, the New Deal introduced to America the spectacle of fascist dictation to business, labor, and agriculture.” ²

Curtis B. Dall, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s son-in-law, made these comments:

“Speaking politically, I regard Woodrow Wilson as a man who sold his soul to the internationalists’ program, to the One World Debt-Finance Forces, and thereby opened the first big holes in our Constitutional and financial “dikes.”  I regard Franklin Roosevelt, after 1932, as likewise selling his political soul to the same One-World, Internationalist Debt-Finance Forces and, under their coercion; he made larger the Woodrow Wilson “holes in the dike.” The net result, devoid of political and ideological fanfare, if such could ever happen, is obvious.  Both men failed in providing a sound leadership for America, but succeeded in furthering themselves and a pattern of policy which advanced various alien backed programs, our Foreign Policy.  This result was especially noticeable in respect to FDR as his health began to fail and his Advisers took over.” ³    

Adlai E. Stevenson said of Franklin Roosevelt:

The Democratic Party took over when the nation was almost in a state of receivership in 1933.  Fortunately, we had a great and revered leader, Franklin Roosevelt. Under his leadership the Democratic Party dedicated itself to improving opportunity and security for all citizens.” ⁴

Journalist H. L. Mencken provides us with a different slant.

“If [President Roosevelt] became convinced tomorrow that coming out for cannibalism would get him the votes he so sorely needs, he would begin fattening a missionary in the White House backyard come Wednesday.” ⁵

It is obvious that he, more than the average President, tended to bring raves of approval or highly critical remarks.  Roosevelt sent mixed signals.  It was hard to discern where he really stood and what he really believed.  To the casual listener, he seemed to be conservative in philosophy with a clear understanding of the Constitution, but if you listened closely to what he said, you would find his choice of words implied a belief that government needed to add just a little bit more to the kettle of freedom.

After carefully reading the measures passed into law (The Social Security Act), it is obvious that Franklin Roosevelt does not stand on par with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.  They envisioned a limited constitutional republic wherein the federal branch of government would be very limited in authority.  They envisioned federal union wherein the states would retain all powers not specifically granted to the federal branch.  The responsibility of the government was to provide for the people a shield of defense, but they were bringing about their own success.   

By contrast, President Roosevelt believed that the government best served the people when it assisted their efforts.  He saw the state as a benevolent helper, advisor, guide, or an overseer.  To him, the master planners were wiser in that they could direct the total program.  To accomplish that feat would require unlimited power and control over the national treasury-and that is the material of which despots are made. 

FDR’s First Inaugural Address

President Hoover, Mr. Chief Justice, my friends:

This is a day of national consecration, and I am certain that my fellow-Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our nation impels.

This is pre-eminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly.  Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today.  This great nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

So first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.  I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.  I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties.  They concern, thank God, only material things.  Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen, government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return.  Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance.  We are stricken by no plague of locusts.  Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered, because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for.  Nature still offers her bounty, and human efforts have multiplied it.  Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply.

Primarily, this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the courts of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True, they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition.  Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. 

Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence.  They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers.

They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization.  We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.

The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.

The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits.  These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow-men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing.

Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance.  With them it cannot live.  [speech continues...]        

In the field of world policy, I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor – the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others – the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never before, our interdependence on each other; that we cannot merely take, but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline, no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective.

We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good.

This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people, dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors.

Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes to emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form.

That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced.  It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.

It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us.  But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from the normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.

These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me.

I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis – broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time.  I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike.

We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy.  The people of the United States have not failed.  In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action.

They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership.  They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift, I take it.

In this dedication of a nation we humbly ask the blessing of God.  May He protect each and every one of us!  May He guide me in the days to come.

(Editor’s Note: All underlined portions represent the “Bible-speak” then understood by a Biblically literate population.  Although Roosevelt represented a great shift left in American politics, even the left, were fully aware of his Scriptural references.  Too bad even the political right is devoid of such ‘Bible-speak’ today.  The greater population are in the dark regarding even a rudimentary understanding of the Bible.  The Bible Nation Society seeks to remedy this sad circumstance by an energetic advocacy.)

James R. Patrick founded the Victory Baptist Church in 1967 and the East Moline Christian School in 1978.  He is the Director of the MacArthur Institute which publishes the Foundation of Liberty Series, an extensive conservative curriculum for homes, schools and churches.  For more information or to order materials write to:

The MacArthur Institute,  900  46th Avenue,  East Moline, Illinois 61244-4406. 

Footnotes: 
1 The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: The First Thousand Days, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1953, p. 206
2 Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, New York: Macmillan, 1951-1952, Vol. III, p. 408.
3  F.D.R.-My Exploited Father-in-Law, Curtis B. Dall, pp. 134-135.
4  Bert Cochran, Adelai Stevenson: Patrician among the Politicians, New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1969, p. 217.
5  Coley Taylor and Samuel Middlebrook, The Eagle Screams, New York: Macauley, 1936, p. 171.

By Jason Georges, Executive Director of The Bible Nation Society

BNS:  What worldview, in your opinion, influenced the thinking of the founding fathers?

I think the first thing to keep in mind is the founding fathers were not a monolithic  group.   They didn’t come out of the same religious tradition, or the same political, or regional backgrounds.  They came from different parts of the country with different interests, different professional backgrounds.  And they were influenced by a variety of worldviews, perspectives, and the like.  Clearly they lived in a Biblically-literate culture.  Christianity was, I would say, probably the most dominant cultural influence.  But they were also being influenced by other ideas, some of which are coming from the other side of the Atlantic.  Some of them, a small number of them, were being influenced by Enlightenment ideals, or the ideas of classical Republicanism, Whig political tradition.  So, they were influenced by a variety of perspectives.  But I think most of them are going to be viewing these different perspectives largely through a Christian lens.

BNS:  Did our founding fathers reference the Bible from a personal knowledge and interest, or was it a political thing to do at the time?

I think that’s a very good question because it really gets to the heart of what I think is one of the most important questions when talking about the Bible in the American founding, and that is for what purposes did this generation use the Bible?  Now the truth of the matter is they used the Bible for a whole variety of reasons, depending on the context, or the time at which they used the Bible.  There are times they used the Bible for purely literary allusions.  They are trying to pick examples from history, from literature, that their audience will know and understand.  And the Bible would have been one of the major sources for that kind of literary allusion.  Sometimes they would have used the Bible for rhetorical effect.  The language of the Bible, especially the King James Bible, carries with it a certain authority, a certain seriousness.  And so, occasionally you’d find this generation using the Bible, or Bible-like language, to convey that kind of authority or seriousness, or to bring solemnity to a particular discourse.  There are other times when you’re going to find them using the Bible to paint a parallel between their own experience and perhaps the experience of the children of Israel as described in the Old Testament.  Other times they use the Bible to make theological points about who is God, the nature of God, and most especially from their perspective how God deals with human beings in the here and now.  So, you find this generation using the Bible for a lot of different reasons, a lot of different purposes.  You have to read this literature in its context.  I don’t think we can make a generalized statement about why they used the Bible, but understand they used the Bible for a variety of reasons and we have to read each example in its context to understand and appreciate why they’re using the Bible.

BNS:  Does one historical figure come to mind where you would say he had an adamant Biblical worldview, even almost ignoring any other influence?

There were certainly founding fathers who are very devout and pious Christians, who want to reflect that piety in all their actions including their involvement in politics.  I would identify people like John Jay, first chief justice of the United States and one of the co-authors of the Federalist Papers.  I would also include Samuel Adams, Elias Boudinot president of the Continental Congress, Oliver Ellsworth, Roger Sherman two men that came out of the state of Connecticut.  Roger Sherman is very much involved in the founding of the American republic.  He was one of only two men to sign three organic expressions of American law:  the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution.  Sherman was a member of the first congress involved in framing the first amendment.  Someone else that I would include is someone like John Witherspoon, leader of the Presbyterian community in the United States, also very involved in politics.  He sat on over one hundred communities in the continental congress, president of what was then called the College of New Jersey, today known as Princeton.  A very devout man who brought his faith with him into the public realm.

BNS:  Did Thomas Jefferson intend for any reference to religion to be excluded from all public discourse when he used the metaphor ‘wall of separation’?

Well, I think the wall of separation metaphor is used today in ways that Jefferson probably would not recognize and might even repudiate.  Looking at his record as a public official I think we would have to conclude that Jefferson did not mean and did not intend to exclude all references to religion and even references to God from public life.  Jefferson himself in numerous public statements made references to God.  You might want to look at what today we call the state of the union address, in his annual messages to Congress he would frequently make references to God and our need to be thankful to God.  Now I wouldn’t suggest that Jefferson was an Orthodox Christian necessarily, but I don’t think he intended to exclude religion and religious expressions from all aspects of public life.

BNS:  In your opinion, what are the dangers of a Bible-illiterate society?

I think that to the extent that many of our expressions, many of our idioms, our manners of communicating with each other are based on ideas, concepts, and allusions to the Bible.  I think it hinders our ability to communicate to each other.  If you take a common expression like, ‘lion’s den’, or ‘Damascus road experience’, or ‘handwriting on the wall’, or ‘forbidden fruit’, the kinds of expression that work their way into popular discourse, if you lack or lose knowledge where these phrases come from it really hinders our ability to communicate to each other.  So, to that extent I think it’s useful, valuable, to be literate in the Bible and how the Bible has informed our culture and in our manner of expression and speaking to one another.

BNS:  What, if any, major events in history participated in the decline of Bible literacy? 

I think there have been certain forces of modernity, perhaps, in the last several hundred years that have emphasized the rational over the transcendent, that have wanted to marginalize matters of faith, to privatize matters of faith.  We see this not only in political ideas but we see it in decisions of our courts, limiting the expression of our religiosity in the public square, those kinds of things.  I think to some extent that has had an impact on the ability of traditional Christianity and Biblical faith in particular to influence the broader culture.

Professor Dreisbach’s principal research interests include American constitutional law and history, First Amendment law, church-state relations, and criminal procedure. He has written extensively on these topics. He has authored or edited five books and numerous articles in scholarly journals. Among the courses that Professor Dreisbach teaches are American Legal Culture, Issues in Civil Justice, Civil Justice Systems and the Constitution, and The Constitution and Criminal Procedure.