American Independence and the King of kings

July 4, 2019 By Terence P. Jeffrey

John Dickinson (Screen Capture/National Archives-New York Public Library)

John Dickinson was both passionate and polite — and served as a role model for political rhetoricians in an era long before the Age of Twitter.

“Complaints may be made with dignity; insults retorted with decency; and violated rights vindicated without violence of words,” he wrote in 1766.

He was responding to unnamed critics in Barbados, who had published an open letter that struck a sycophantic tone toward the British parliament, while simultaneously complaining about the Stamp Act passed by that parliament and ridiculing the “violent spirit raised in the North-American colonies against this act.”

Parliament approved the Stamp Act in 1765, imposing a tax on American colonists they had not approved through their own legislatures.

Dickinson was an eloquent critic of this act. In his view, parliament’s attack on American rights raised a fundamental question about all human rights.

“Kings and parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness, as you confess those invaded by the Stamp Act to be,” he wrote.

“We claim them from a higher source — from the King of kings, and Lord of all the Earth,” he declared.

“They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals,” he wrote. “They are created in us by decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by any human power, without taking our lives.

“In short,” he said, “they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice.”

For the British Parliament to tax colonists not represented in that parliament, Dickinson concluded, “is inconsistent with reason and justice; and subversive of those sacred rights which God himself from the infinity of his benevolence has bestowed on mankind.”

As vehemently as Dickinson argued here — 10 years before the Declaration of Independence — against the acts of a British Parliament and for the God-given rights of American colonists, he ardently considered himself to be a British patriot.

“As to Great Britain, I glory in my relation to her,” he wrote.

“Every drop of blood in my heart is British,” he said, “and that heart is animated with as warm wishes for her prosperity, as her truest sons can form.”

Indeed, this American-born defender of God-given rights had learned the law in London. “From 1753 to 1757, he attended the Middle Temple at the Inns of Court in London and, upon his return to the colonies, established a practice in Philadelphia,” says the biography posted by The John Dickinson Writings Project at the University of Kentucky.

A decade after Dickinson declared that our rights come from the King of kings, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, which invoked the same principle.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” wrote Jefferson, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Despite being one of America’s leading advocates of this principle, Dickinson declined to support declaring American independence.

“When the vote was taken, refusing to vote against his conscience but knowing that any declaration should be unanimous for the sake of the cause, Dickinson absented himself from the proceedings,” says the John Dickinson Writings Project biography.

Yet Dickinson did fight for the new United States of America.

“Determined to prove his patriotism, in 1777, Dickinson did something nearly unheard of for a gentleman of his stature — he enlisted in the Delaware militia as a private and, ‘with a musket upon (his) shoulder,’ scoured the countryside for supplie(s) and served at the Battle of Brandywine,” says the biography. “He was soon promoted to brigadier general, a commission he resigned later that year. Despite not being a Continental officer, Dickinson was nonetheless admitted to the Society of the Cincinnati as an honorary member for his distinguished service.”

Eighteen centuries before Dickinson and Jefferson argued there was a natural law, created by God, that no nation could disobey, Marcus Tullius Cicero made the same point.

“There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil,” Cicero wrote.

“It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable,” he said.

“It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings,” wrote that Roman patriot. “God himself is it author, its promulgator, its enforcer.”

As Americans celebrate the Fourth of July and more than 240 years of national independence, they should remember and revere not only those who fought to defend this principle, but the principle itself.

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSnews.com. To find out more about him, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at http://www.creators.com.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/american-independence-and-king-kings


VIDEO A Thirteen-year-old is Threatened While Standing For Life in the Womb

By Jake MacAulay – June 15, 2019

Addison Woosley, 13, spoke out during a Raleigh, North Carolina, city council meeting Tuesday. Woosley called for an end to abortion and to make Raleigh a “sanctuary city for the unborn“.

“Abortion should be illegal because it is murder. The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another,” Addison said. “There’s no way around it. Abortion is murder. So, why is it if an infant is destroyed before birth, there is no problem, but if killed after birth, it’s considered a brutal murder?”

The truth of Miss Woosley’s assertion can easily be seen in America’s founding documents. In the Declaration of Independence, our founders were acknowledging a “self-evident truth” wherein they stated:

“All men are created equal with certain unalienable rights.”

Did you catch that?  They were not “born equal,” but rather “created equal” by their Creator with certain unalienable rights – chiefly life.  And we all know human beings are created in the womb of their mother.

“On ultrasounds, the baby tries to move away from the disturbing instruments that try to kill the baby,” Addison said, “The baby’s mouth opens wide in a scream when being killed. These babies are alive. They feel being killed. It hurts them and there is nothing they can do about it.”

“Are you choosing to be like the plantation worker flogging the little black child,” the girl asked the council, “Or are you going to protest even if it cost your life like Martin Luther King, Jr.?”

In reaction to the middle schooler’s oration regarding the protection of the pre-born, shouting progressively became louder until her voice was drowned out altogether. Despite looking understandably frightened, Addison Woosley wrapped up her speech confidently and walked alone back to her seat where the thirteen-year-old girl was berated and jeered at by adults in the crowd.

I want to personally and publicly thank you, Addison Woosley, for your courageous, selfless stance against the abominable practice of infanticide. You have been thrust into this hostile war on your generation and you are responding like a boss.

Yet, despite that and against the odds of our morally depraved culture, you are willing to fight for the lives of the defenseless.

“You shall not murder” is as pertinent today as it was when God created us with the right to life. Our founders acknowledged that the “Supreme Lawgiver” created this law as a protection for His creation, and violation of His law results in personal and societal consequences.

When we abandon God’s Word, we abandon all rationality. Instead, we have chosen to prop up an abstract morality full of contradictions and deceit.

Addison is right; chattel slavery and infant murder have always been, and will always be, an abomination.  Justifying one over the other and maintaining “freedom for the people” is outright duplicitous and diabolical. Rather than threaten this thirteen-year-old, Americans ought to concede to her godly, constitutional wisdom.

Schedule an event or learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

 

Original here

Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome

April 1, 2019 By Reverend Paul N. Papas II

 

 

The disease has been spreading across the country with the latest outbreak being found in the San Antonio Airport area. The symptoms include HIGHsteria over false impressions and false reports of certain beliefs attributed to Chick-fil-a owners and workers.

In today’s society there is a noisy group that has lost or never learned the art of debate, instead they bully those who disagree with them. For some unknown illogical reason the noisy group mistakenly believes noise, assaults, and violence will change someone’s point of view, this is known as Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome.

If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome we would not have our Constitution and we would be subjects of the Queen. If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome there would not have been a War of 1812. If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome members of the military could commandeer any housing it wished without recourse by or compensation to the property owner. If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome police would not need a warrant to search your property. If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome cruel and unusual punishment would be legal.  If the Founding Fathers had Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome there would be no civil rights acts or equal rights.

Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome was on display in the Decline and Fall of the SPLC Empire (One Conservative Group Fought Back).

Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome was on display in the Jussie Smollett case.

Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome was on display after the Pennsylvania State Rep opened the House in Prayer: “At The Name of Jesus Every Knee Will Bow”

I think you get the idea.

Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome is not helpful to enjoying our Rights “endowed by [our] Creator … certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It is good to keep Chick-fil-A.

It is time to eradicate the Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome.

It is time to practice the age old art of debate where we discuss a question by considering opposing arguments.

Here is one example of a popular debate format called “traditional” in an academic debate setting:

Stock Issues Case:
• Demonstrate that there are serious problems with the status quo
• Show that these problems are inherent to the system
• Present a specific plan (implementing the resolution)
• Show that this plan will help solve the problems without creating serious new ones

Longtime readers may remember I served on a Charter Commission for a town. The voter registration for the town was 3 to 1 Democrat. The Charter Commission make up was five Democrats and four Republicans The membership age range was from the early twenties to late sixties.  The GOP Party town chairman and Democrat Party town vice chair were members of the Commission. All members ran town wide. The Chairman of the Charter Commission sold caskets, the rest of us worked in various fields.

The Charter Commission was authorized by voters and the membership was elected at the same election. We had one year to work together to write a Charter which is akin to a Constitution. The charter needed to resolve conflicts in town laws, bylaws and state laws as they affected the town specifically, as well as provide for town boards and commissions structure and function.

The Charter Commission held weekly open meeting and several public hearings where sections of the proposed new charter were debated by the voters and commission members.

One year after the Charter was authorized and the members elected the finished product of the printed new proposed town charter was in hands of every voter to be voted up or down as a whole.  The voters approved and accepted the new charter by a comfortable margin.

The point is we volunteered to serve one year on the town Charter Commission to write from scratch the document which outlined the operation of the town and we succeeded. We succeeded because we worked together, debated, and came to agreement in full view of the public and press.

The Charter Commission is but one example of how this country of ours became great. We can do it again.

Let’s keep Chick-fil-A.

Let’s eradicate the Chick-fil-A Derangement Syndrome.

https://preacher01704.wordpress.com/2019/04/05/chick-fil-a-derangement-syndrome/