Replies

Thanks.

Left to his own "wits," armed only with flashing a toothy smile which, when implemented at inappropriate times, reveals its own disconnection from the topic and moment, he uncloaked himself before the world.

With that said, the writer's placing of the name of the Messiah and the caricature of "a messiah" presented by this puppet of the forces of "progressivism" in the same article, though intended to differentiate between, is a little troubling.

The first spoke with authority, as "the Word made flesh."

The second uses a voice, a speaking style, and an acquired ability to "act" before audiences, with the help of prompters and teleprompters, to sound authoritative.

There is no comparison, nor should there be.

One came to reveal the Source of individual life, rights, liberty and a way to pursue happiness in keeping with Creator's law.

Others throughout history have come to entice individuals to forsake individual liberty and their unalienable rights in order to serve them and those who send them.

Would suggest to any who wish an authentic history of the ideas underlying America's founding a visit to this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" can be read on line.

This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.

Is there any wonder that the enemies of freedom, the so-called "progressives," do not promote such authentic histories of America? Their philosophy puts something called "the state," or "global interests" as being superior to individuals and requires a political elitist group to decide what role individuals are to play.

In other words, they must turn the Founders' ideas upside-down in order to achieve a common mediocrity for individuals and power for themselves.

So, the still-revolutionary idea stated by both Ryan and Romney about the Source of our rights became fodder for the current President's disdain recently, when he declared that they were "reruns" from the 20th Century and better suited for "black and white" television. (Actually, Mr. President, they are from a time much earlier than that.)

As Jefferson wisely observed:

"History, by apprising the people of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views."

All of which reinforces our conviction that the ideas of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are as revolutionary and objectionable to tyrants as they were in 1776 and 1787!