Evidence that the American Founding was NOT Christian

Received this link in my email today from a Christian ministry, for The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers, a three-hour movie showing that the American founding was pretty much exclusively the product of the Enlightenment, through Freemasonry and the Illuminati, not the product of Biblical thinking as some Christian ministries have claimed.

THIS IS VERY WELL DONE, ALL CHRISTIANS SHOULD SEE THIS.

I've heard some of this before but never so convincingly presented. I DID already know that Jefferson, Paine and Franklin were not Christians, nor Adams, because he was a Unitarian, and I don't know how anyone ever said otherwise, but even the idea that some of the PRINCIPLES of the founding were Christian despite the beliefs of the founders takes a hit in this presentation. For me, the greatest revelation is about George Washington's beliefs.

But I have to admit that overall ANY claim for Christian inspiration of the United States government has been soundly debunked in this presentation. Perhaps the hardest part to digest is that the champion of the Christian argument, David Barton, is shown to have quoted out of context in such a way as to bring his motives into question.

I still need to hear answering arguments from the other side but at the very least I'm now convinced that whatever Christian thinking did influence the American founding is highly compromised by the evident anti-Christian influences.

Birth Pangs of the Lord's Day, from a Biblical point of view

Just happened to see this video, No. 9 in a series of 14, called Megiddo I, the March to Armageddon. This could just as well be in my End Times blog but the emphasis is so political I decided to put it here. This particular segment covers some of the history of the push for a New World Order in speeches by various world leaders over the last century.

I haven't yet seen the whole series. Here is Part 1 and I'll probably be back later to add more to this post.

The Birth Certificate Flap again

Yeah, I know, this has supposedly been put to rest many times over by now, with supposed evidence that Obama was born in the U.S., in Hawaii. Yes, I know there are even Conservatives who believe he was born in the U.S. And yes, there is SOME kind of evidence to that effect, a "Certification of Live Birth" (that doesn't look like any birth certificate I've ever seen -- doesn't look like mine, that's for sure), and a couple of birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers. Yes, it sort of almost looks like solid enough evidence. But is it really?

We've heard he paid a couple million dollars or so dealing with this question. Did he? If he did, we're just supposed to pretend that means nothing and not let it make us even more suspicious than we already are?

I've also heard it said that he's just playing us, that he really was born in the U.S. and could prove it in a moment but he wants to play the Right for all it's worth and spring it on us when it will do the most damage to his political opponents.

And we're supposed to accept that a President can just withhold evidence required by the Constitution in order to benefit himself politically? I guess in this benighted age fraud is the new righteous, huh?

Yes, there's lots of supposed evidence out there that he was "really" born in Hawaii. Here's a link to MSNBC on the subject from a poster at EvC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...519951/ns/politics-more_politics

To sum up the above article:
- The long form birth certificate exists
- The long form birth certificate is state property and by law cannot be released to the public
- The shorter "certification of live birth" is what anybody would get from the state when they requested a copy of their birth certiificate

"What he got, everybody got," said Fukino. "He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate."

- Along with the birth certificate, Obama's birth is registered in a public index of vital records

Excuse me, but this doesn't do it for me. When I applied for my birth certificate some twenty or so years ago I got a photocopy of the complete "long form" birth certificate, not something that looked like this document that we are supposed to accept for Obama.

This is so lame: Sure, the original is state property and can't be released to THE PUBLIC, but it CAN be released to Obama himself and HE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO GET IT AND SHOW IT TO US. The certificate he did manage to get supposedly verifies that "the long form birth certificate exists" -- yeah, but since he COULD get the long form for us and doesn't do that, what's to prove the short form is not a fake -- a fake he paid for?

Also, my brother tells me he was also sent something like that short form certificate when he applied about fifteen years ago for his -- he thinks for a passport -- but that when he submitted it for whatever the purpose was he'd requested it they rejected it, and he had to go back to the records office and get them to provide him with the original (long form) certificate.

This raises questions in MY mind, don't know about yours.

If Obama did spend a lot of money on this, exactly what did he pay for anyway? Possibly a fake Certification of Live Birth? Even possibly the entry of his name in the Index of Vital Records? Or perhaps he did get listed there when he was born in Kenya because somebody notified them at the time? That's how it could have happened with the announcements in the newspapers too. I don't know, of course, but this whole thing is so fishy it just has to raise such questions for anyone who really does care about the truth.

Sorry, but that "Certification of Live Birth" is NOT the kind of certificate that "anybody would get" and even if it is for some reason what is given out more recently than when I applied, if my brother is right it isn't regarded as a legal document anyway for some purposes. My brother got HIS long form when he went back and requested it, why can't Obama? That would put all the doubts to rest and surely his is just as available to him as anyone's is. I have mine, it's what they USED to send you automatically. Why they stopped I have no idea but it makes no sense that they stopped. We usually need our birth certificates for a variety of legal purposes including passports -- we need the LEGAL long form version, not this substitute. What good is this substitute anyway? Sure makes ME wonder if the one he produced -- after paying for it? -- isn't a fake anyway.

Then there's that birth certificate from KENYA that's been floating around the internet for some time now. That looks authentic in a way this "short form" from Hawaii doesn't. Sure, they say it's a forgery, but the same is suspected of the Hawaiian certificate and anyone can say anything, where's the ironclad PROOF? AND there's the report that his Kenyan grandmother said she was there when he was born, AND there's the claim that other Kenyans think of him as a Kenyan and there are even some sort of monuments to his citizenship there.

Sorry, if he was born in this country,

1) He has an OBLIGATION to produce IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, not something open to question as this document is. If only to quell all the suspiciousness. If he CAN quell it he SHOULD quell it.

2) It should not be hard to produce it. I have irrefutable evidence of MY birth in this country, my brother has his. Why is it so hard for Obama?

Donald Trump is asking these questions these days too and he's got the money to do the research. Good for him I say.

The Left wants us to stuff it. Sorry, the truth in this case requires more than we've been shown.

Another Idiotic Supreme Court Ruling, Another Idiotic and Dangerous Misreading of the First Amendment

Of course I'm referring to this decision in favor of Westboro church's "right" to harass the family of a soldier at his funeral.

Just another evil day in the revisionist mutilation of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's power-grabbing overthrow of the Constitution's notion of checks and balances. The father of the dead soldier would make a better Justice:

Snyder's reaction, at a news conference in York, Pa.: "My first thought was, eight justices don't have the common sense God gave a goat." He added, "We found out today we can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity."

Not even the common sense of a goat, Mr. Snyder, you got it.

An event like this one just makes for another resounding "YES!" to the title of my blog. Getting later all the time.

Duh. Do I have to explain? Oh probably. The First Amendment was meant to protect CITIZENS against GOVERNMENT -- as most of the Constitution was intended to do. Here we have a ruling supposedly on the basis of the First Amendment that officially justifies harassment of a private citizen, a ruling that in effect SUPPORTS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OF ONE CITIZEN AGAINST ANOTHER.

Listen, we just need to face it. There is no more America.

The American Founding -- nothing but Masonic curses and pagan imagery?

Listening to an attack on the American Founders, a lot of it about the Masonic influence on the architecture of Washington D.C. which does raise questions about how such apparently precisely designed symbolic relationships got conceived and built, meaning who exactly had the vision and was able to bring it off like that? Wild accusations of the Founders themselves as complicit in this really need to be toned down. The fact of the buildings themselves isn't evidence, you need evidence in the form of quotes at the very least. So far I haven't heard it. In any case there seems to be evidence enough that Masonic influence WAS driving the design. Beyond that I'm not yet prepared to go.

Those who get into this kind of information unfortunately tend to keep themselves as ignorant as possible of the other side of the story. You can't tell them anything about the Christian beliefs of the Founders for instance, because they always answer with the Masonic "evidence" against them. They seem to think that externals prove conscious intention. Big leap there. There's a Proverb about the foolishness of hearing only one side of a story. They rely on just a few of the same sources, all with an axe to grind. I'm not doubting that there was all that Masonic influence in the founding of America -- or the pagan themes either. What I'm doubting is that the whole story is getting told and that these influences are being understood in the right context and within the mentality of the times. You can't assume that what you know about the inner workings of Masonry is what was in the minds of participants in another culture and time. You have to study what they themselves had to say.

Of course I'm in the other position, having heard and read quite a bit that demonstrates the Christian mentality in the founding generation, very recently having heard an excerpt of a book being read on local Christian radio that seemed to do a very thorough job of showing that George Washington was a true Christian despite his Masonic membership. Sounded like a book I'd like to read if I could fit it in somewhere.

It's interesting now to have to contemplate the meaning of all this Masonic occultic stuff which does appear to be amazingly present in government architecture. But those who know only about the Masonic occultic stuff could use a good dose of the other side and do some reading in the evidence for the Christian basis of the nation because it's very strong and if they ignore it they compromise their credibility. As it stands, it all comes off as a jumping to conclusions based only on external appearances and a completely one-sided version of history.

Not to mention that the Christian nature of America is not dependent on the beliefs of the Founders but on principles that had been imbibed by them from the previous centuries of Christianization of Law and Culture. Our institutions were originally shot through with a Christian worldview no matter what the Founders' personal beliefs might have been. And the population of America at that time was deeply Christian.

I still have more to listen to on this subject and I'm not prepared to get much further into it at this point.

WHY ALL THE PAGAN ARCHITECTURE?
It is somewhat unnerving to find out how many pagan images inspired American buildings, but I think that could mostly have been the result of the fact that architects and sculptors, same as most artists in those days, had a reverence for classical (Greek) forms as particularly beautiful and significant, and that was a legacy from the Renaissance, not from pagan religion itself. To know how it was inspired would take more reading than those on the Masonic-conspiracy side of the story seem willing to do.

I don't know what artistic sensibility came up with the Egyptian obelisk for Washington's monument, but if you read the account at Wikipedia of the building of the monument it's hard to see any concerted pagan or Masonic intentions in it. It wasn't one smooth project. Its original plan was changed and its construction was interrupted which shows that 666 feet of height wasn't the original objective. If some such intentional symbolism ended up in it then we have to look for its author for the later stages. There doesn't seem to be such an intention in the early stages at least.

Also, there is no goddess named Columbia and it's plain foolishness that goes on and on about this supposed pagan "goddess." It wouldn't have taken much research to straighten out this nonsense either, just a reading of the Wikipedia entry ought to clear it up. There you find out that "Columbia" is a made-up name that appeared first in 1738 in Britain as a way to refer to America without doing it directly. It is based on the name Christopher Columbus! You know, the discoverer of America. It's an INVENTION for the purpose of SYMBOLIZING the country of America. A PERSONIFIED invention. And again, since artists liked Greek art one of them dressed her in a Greek chiton. (I guess because it suggests antiquity and dignity. You want a Hollywood style side-slit strapless gown? A bikini?) She never existed as a Greek Goddess!! She's a SYMBOL for pete's sake.

For the same reason we also don't need to get worked up over the Statue of Liberty as if it were a demonic curse based on a real goddess. She is a personification of the abstract concept of Liberty. Yes, there were goddesses of liberty in Rome and Greece, but the statue is intended for a different purpose: to represent the freedom for which the United States is known, for which it fought against a despotic king and which its institutions enshrine. Again, she is a PERSONIFICATION of a concept. How would YOU try to depict the concept of freedom in a statue? A woman holding a torch is a very effective image. And again at Wikipedia read how her headdress was arrived at. There is no particular goddess she is based on, many ways of depicting her were considered. She is not worshipped as a goddess, she functions as a touching tribute to American history. It's absurd to try to make more out of it than that.

It is not a good idea to impute to demons what is really just the idealistic work of an artist.

Again, it seems clear enough that there was Masonic influence in much of the architecture, and there certainly are pagan images as well. The one that bothers me the most is the image of Mohammed as a lawgiver alongside Moses on I guess the Supreme Court building. And the Masonic symbolism is pretty thick in some of them.

But I feel a need for a better historical account of these things than the Masonic-conspiracy people give us. My main question is Who had that kind of mentality and the power to influence those buildings?

A GENERAL POSITION STATEMENT ON THESE SUPPOSED REVELATIONS:

I've listened to some more on this subject and although there's plenty more to go I have come to one clear conclusion in my own mind that I want to state here:

IT DOES NOT MATTER as far as Christians go, or as far as the business of the U.S. government goes either, that somehow Masonic and pagan imagery and symbolism apparently got established here and there in the architecture of government buildings. What matters is the intentions of the people, what's in the heart, not what's plastered on the wall of a building.

Of course it may matter for SOME purposes, and if even half of it's true it's certainly a startling fact that needs to be thought about, but it isn't something WE need to be spending a lot of time concerned about, and IT'S WRONG FOR THESE TEACHERS TO TRY TO ENGAGE A PERSON'S CONSCIENCE AGAINST THIS.

What did Paul teach about idols? That they are NOTHING! We do not need to concern ourselves about them. Even eating food sacrificed to them is not to be made a big deal conscience-wise for believers who are to "[ask] no question for conscience' sake." If it IS a big deal for some with a weak conscience, as I understand it they should not eat it because it will defile them in that state of mind, and others should refrain from eating it as well for that brother's sake, but otherwise Paul teaches NOT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT FOR CONSCIENCE' sake.

27 If one of them that believe not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: 29 conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's;

The point is that there is no need to get stirred up about gods and goddesses in mere imagery. It is quite possible for Christian proceedings to go on within pagan walls without any effect from them if they are treated as the NOTHINGS that Paul says they are, just nice paintings and sculptures that remind us of the noble history of the nation. If you make a big deal out of any supposed pagan influence THEN you might expect an effect because you will have introduced anxiety and guilt where you should have left well enough alone.

ALSO, this idea that imagery that exalts George Washington to some kind of deified status IN THE MINDS OF OCCULTISTS proves that HE HIMSELF shared in their point of view is irresponsible. WHAT THE OCCULTISTS THINK ABOUT WASHINGTON PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT HE HIMSELF THOUGHT!!

And making his image on the one-dollar bill into proof of anything other than that he was the first President of the U.S., and one much revered by his own generation for many achievements and virtues, including his role as leader of the American Revolution, is, may I say, STUPID! HE WAS AN IMPORTANT MAN IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Good grief!

Such overwrought thinking really needs the correction of a good solid trustworthy biography of his life. Good grief!

I'm in fact VERY interested to understand the pagan and Masonic imagery and how it got there and what purpose it might have besides possibly making pagans titter at the recognition of some of their favorite symbols and the naivete of the rest of us, but again, I do not trust this kind of presentation.

Another Rant on the Perversion of the First Amendment

According to the ACLU, profanity is supposedly a right granted by the Constitution.

The ACLU sued the police in May 2010 on behalf of a woman ticketed for yelling "asshole" at a motorcyclist who swerved close to her.

The civil liberties group said such profanity is protected speech under the Constitution

...Officers will receive mandatory training in free speech, and will be told that "obscene" does not mean profanity, indecent speech, or gestures, the ACLU said.

This is pathetic, this is sad, this is unbelievable deceit. How far out of touch with the minds of the Founding Fathers can you get and still claim the title of defender of the Constitution? They should really be called something like the (Anti) American Constitution Demolition Union. It's criminal that they are allowed to go on their destructive course as they do. What's the matter with our justice system that the ACLU wins cases on the basis of their misuse of the Constitution?

Oh I don't want the woman prosecuted for such a word, that isn't the thing that matters. What matters is the perversion of the First Amendment. THAT matters! If you want to change the profanity laws, fine, but leave the First Amendment alone! Such laws do not violate it!

Doesn't it ever occur to anyone that the US had anti-profanity laws going back to the Founders and THEY didn't consider it a violation of the Amendment that THEY wrote?

We also had religious expressions in public and on government property going back to the Founders and they didn't consider THOSE a violation of the Amendment that THEY wrote either.

So we're liberating all the evils of Pandora's box and claiming they are protected by our Constitution. America is taking a long time to go down but down it will go in the end, and perhaps the very end will be quite the noisy crash.

Ps 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

MELTDOWN OVER IDIOTIC AND DANGEROUS MISAPPLICATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

It could make a person sick, actually it should, and probably does, anyone with any sensitivity who is paying attention.

I just listened to a few seconds' worth of a video news report on the legal question of Amazon's "right" to publish an e-book for pedophiles, because I couldn't stand to hear another word.

AGH, YUCK, BLECH, RETCH.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE SO LOST TRACK OF WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION WAS ALL ABOUT? IT WAS ABOUT POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS, THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT TYRANNY AGAINST POLITICAL OPINIONS IN PARTICULAR, THE RIGHT TO HAVE PUBLIC POLITICAL OPINIONS WITHOUT FEAR OF CENSORSHIP AND PERSECUTION FROM GOVERNMENT, THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE ONE'S RELIGION WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO SUPPORT PERSONAL TASTES OR SEXUAL HABITS (OR "RELIGIOUS" PRACTICES THAT VIOLATE OUR CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWS EITHER FOR THAT MATTER -- AT LEAST OUR SANE LAWS, THE ONES THAT ARE IN KEEPING WITH OUR WESTERN CHRISIAN HERITAGE). THE IDEA IS AGAINST THE WHOLE SPIRIT OF THE FOUNDING OF AMERICA, THE VERY THOUGHT IS SO NAUSEATINGLY INAPPROPRIATE IT HAS TO BE A SIGN THAT THE END OF THE WORLD IS COMING SOON -- OR I HOPE IT IS. I CAN'T STAND THE THOUGHT THAT THIS SORT OF INSANITY COULD GET WORSE.

"FREEDOM" WAS NEVER EVER MEANT TO GRANT A "RIGHT" TO PUBLIC OBSCENITY OR VULGARITY OR TO FEEDING HUMAN PERVERSIONS, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT CAN ENDANGER OTHERS, IN THIS CASE CHILDREN, AND WE USED TO HAVE LAWS AGAINST THAT SORT OF THING WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE SHOWN ANYONE WITH ANY INTELLIGENCE THAT IT COULDN'T HAVE MEANT THAT. FREEDOM NEVER MEANT FREEDOM TO COMMIT CRIMES OR OFFENSES AGAINST OTHERS OR AGAINST SOCIETY, BUT THEY'VE TWISTED THE WORD TO MEAN THAT -- SINCE ABOUT THE 60S.

THOSE WHO SUPPORT SUCH THINGS ARE SICK SICK SICK. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE LEFT, THE JUDICIARY AND MOST OF THE POWERS THAT BE THESE DAYS, THE WHOLE MARXIST-INFECTED LOT OF THEM.

THIS MAKES ME SO SICK ALL I CAN DO IS RANT.