David Barton

Just as the Scriptures direct individuals to care for the poor, so, too, do they direct the church and congregation. For example, if a poor individual is unable to meet his obligations, the priests are specifically instructed to examine that person, determine the extent of his needs, see what he was capable of paying, and then grant appropriate relief (see Leviticus 27:8). Similarly, in Esther 9:22, after God had delivered His people from their enemies, the Scriptures note that Mordecai “wrote them to observe the days as days of feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor.” This command was to the collective people of God.

Also notice the New Testament’s powerful directives to the church to take care of the poor. For example, Acts 4:34-35 reveals that in the early church under the leadership of the Apostles, “there was not a needy person among them” because the church “distributed to each as any had need.” And when the Apostles James, Peter, and John later met with Paul in Jerusalem, they specifically charged him to “remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10), which Paul reports “was something I was already committed to doing” (v. 10). As he made his subsequent missionary journeys, he proudly reported of the churches he started in Macedonia and Achaia that they “were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Romans 15:26). In fact, he specifically noted that “They were pleased to do it – and indeed they owe it to them” (v. 27).

Clearly, then, the church or congregation is also directed to help the poor.

david barton david barton

•  The law is not made for a righteous person but for . . . homosexuals . . . and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. I TIMOTHY 1:9-11
•  If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. LEVITICUS 20:13

 There were sodomites in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out. I KINGS 14:24

•  Were they ashamed because of the abomination they have done? They were not even ashamed at all. JEREMIAH 6:15
•  God gave them up to vile passions. The men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. ROMANS 1:26-27
•  The crime not to be named sodomy, I pass in a total silence.
•  It sodomy, though repugnant to every sentiment of decency and delicacy, is very prevalent in corrupt and debauched countries where the low pleasures of sensuality and luxury have depraved the mind and degraded the appetite below the brutal animal creation.
• Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time.

If a candidate is willing to accept, empower, and advance homosexuality, it is a clear indication that he does not embrace the moral absolutes of the Bible.

Historically speaking, Biblically-established rights and wrongs formed the basis of morals and thus of law in the civilized nations of the Western World, and nowhere was this more manifest than in America. Notice some of the many American courts that unabashedly acknowledged this fact:

Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?
The morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity. . . . We are people whose manners . . . and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.

The Christian concept of right and wrong, or right and justice, motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled.

Christianity has reference to the principles of right and wrong . . . it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis.

The Christian religion is . . . the basis of our morals and the strength of our government.

Today, however, some have begun to reject the Judeo-Christian moral absolutes of the Bible in favor of their own personal preferences – a situation thrice denounced in the Scriptures as “every man doing that which is right in his own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8, Judges 17:6, and 21:25). The Supreme Court recently bestowed its blessing on individual preference as the national moral standard in its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision ,a decision made before the arrival of the two new Justices, when it struck down Texas’ law banning sodomy – a decision which one of the Justices said “effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.” He also noted that “state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise. . . . called into question.” By that ruling, if something is sexually consensual, it is constitutional.

Consequently, in North Carolina a federal judge threw out charges against a man arrested for soliciting sodomy in a public park. And certainly, if solicitation of homosexual sex in public is now permissible, so, too, must be the public solicitation of heterosexual sex, for prostitution is definitely consensual.

In Utah, three adults used the Court’s decision in an attempt to obtain a marriage license that would enable the husband to marry an additional wife; after all, since polygamy is consensual and agreed to by all parties involved, that behavior must be constitutional.

In Ohio, an attorney defending his client from prosecution under anti-pornography and anti-obscenity laws similarly asserted that such laws were no longer constitutional, for those who purchase obscene videos to view abominable and societally horrendous sexual acts, including bestiality, human sex with animals, are doing so consensually.

david barton david barton

• You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I am fearfully and wonderfully made. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret. Your eyes saw my substance when I was yet unformed, and in Your book the days fashioned for me all were written when as yet there were none of them. PSALM 139:13-16

• The Lord made you and formed you from the womb. The Lord your Redeemer formed you from the womb. ISAIAH 44:2, 24

• The Declaration of Independence . . . will tell you that its authors held for self-evident truth that the right to life is the first of the inalienable rights of man –  to secure and not to destroy, governments are instituted among men. 51 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, PRESIDENT; DIPLOMAT; LEGISLATOR

• With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close is protected by the common law. In the contemplations of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, that life is protected.

In fact, experience regularly attests that if a government leader is willing to violate the foremost of all inalienable rights , then he will also disregard other inalienable rights. That is, if a leader does not support the inalienable right to life, then he will almost certainly be wrong on the protection of private property , the Biblical right of self defense , the right of religious expression , the sanctity of the home , etc. In short, if a leader refuses to recognize the role of God in the creation of life and does not pledge himself to protect that first of all inalienable rights, then all other individual rights are also in danger. Barack Obama has never voted to protect unborn life either as a state senator in Illinois 55 or as a U. S. Senator. 56 Furthermore, he is a sponsor of the deplorable Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) 57 – a federal law that would prohibit all restrictions on abortion, including even the current state bans on partial-birth abortions as well as parental consent and parental notification laws.

Thomas Jefferson’s clarion warning from two centuries ago still rings true today:

    Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? – that they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just – that His justice cannot sleep forever.

    Where a candidate stands on the issue of abortion is of paramount importance and is also the most accurate indicator of how likely he is to protect other inalienable rights.

david barton david barton

This is a completely wrong conclusion, based on several inaccurate theses – at least if the statement is based on the original intent established in the Constitution and explained through the early writings. The “Senate’s mandate to represent all states equally, regardless of their populations” is not the basis for (1) a “priority assigned to deliberation”; (2) “satisfying the overall body”; or (3) becoming “a special forum for the airing of minority points of view.” Rather, the basis for all of these functions is neither constitutional mandate nor Framers’ intentions but rather the Senate’s own rules, for according to Article I, §5, ¶2: “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.” Indeed, it is the Senate’s own rules – and neither the Constitution nor original intent – that makes the Senate different from the House in these three respects.

In fact, should the House so decide, it could adopt the Senate rules for its own and would then exhibit the same three traits. As a confirmation of this point, in the early years, filibusters occurred in the House as often if not more so than in the Senate; the House subsequently changed its rules to eliminate this practice and thus today appears “less deliberative” and less open to “express minority views” and “satisfy the overall body.” Furthermore, despite the much larger size of the House as compared to the Senate even two centuries ago, its rules nevertheless allowed for each member to participate individually; it has subsequently changed those rules, but could easily return to them should it so decide. Therefore, the reason that the House does not look like the Senate in its technical day-to-day operation is the different rules that it has set for itself. The wording in this entire paragraph needs to be reworked substantially.

As pointed out in the discussion accompanying p. 17, ¶1 above, “the policy of virtually unlimited debate” is definitely not “what the framers of the Constitution intended.” They intended (and practiced) open debate by all sides, but no where is there any basis for asserting they intended “unlimited debate.” (Even more clear and conclusive evidence on this fact will be included below.) As previously noted, the Senate’s practice of “virtually unlimited debate” is a result of its own rules and not of any constitutional intent.

Often ignored in examining Senate rules is the fact that the Senate is a continuing body; the House is not. While the House completely reorganizes itself every two years (and can easily change its rules), the Senate does not. In fact, the Senate has never gone out of session; for since only a maximum of one-third of its members can be replaced in any election, the Senate has never at any point since 1789 had less than a quorum still sitting in office. Therefore, the real difficulty in altering Senate rules is their requirement for a two-thirds concurrence on any rules change.

The adoption of the two-thirds rule as related to “virtually unlimited debate” (a rule adopted well after the organization of the Senate under the Constitution) has proven to be unfortunate. In Federalist 75, Alexander Hamilton explained why the Framers had not required a two-thirds majority for votes (except for the passage of constitutional amendments) – and thus forewarned about the difficulties that today regularly pervade the Senate under its practice of “virtually unlimited debate”:

david barton david barton