My friends,

This is one for forwarding to all for whom you are thankful, and also to those who could use a lesson in thankfulness.

Do you suppose that a signer of the Declaration of Independence could tell us if the people’s nation was founded for the purpose of having government kicking Jesus out of the public square, out of the schools, off of the street corners, out of the books, or even out of the government?  I think that he can, and one only need to be able to reason as completely as a squirrel, which takes an autumn snowfall as a sign to finish preparations for winter, to realize this.  Now, I know that it’s true that many an educator and many elected officials and others whose disproportionate influence on others are turning our society upside down don’t have enough sense to gather up nuts and prepare for lean times, squirrels being smarter than they are, and they make it difficult for the rest of us to do it.   But I know that each of you can reason completely enough to correctly infer that this signer, while administering government as best he could according to the Gospel of Christ, has made Jesus his personal king and in his official capacity as Governor is urging the people to prepare for their own future, for the future is eternal and those who know Jesus know that, and know, also, that the union of then thirteen nation-states, together often referred to simply as America,

• was NOT founded so that idiots could pander to those who think that girls should be able to force themselves into the Boy Scouts.
• was NOT founded so that men and boys could claim the right to use the girls’ bathroom or the women’s shower.
• was NOT founded so that babies, ten minutes from birth, could be ripped limb from limb and discarded summarily like undesired leftovers.
• was NOT founded so that license could be protected, even celebrated, even in the street.
• was NOT founded so that schemers could take control of it to enact confiscatory taxes and use that money to direct and control the people; the union was not founded so that, what we currently call THE DEEP STATE could usurp the rights, deposited, by the Creator, in the people, to control the people.

John Hancock tells us in this proclamation why the nation was founded, or at least how the nation prospers and could continue to prosper.  Hancock was one of the most educated men in the world and he, as well as his fellow revolutionaries, could have lived quite comfortably under the reign of the monarch(s) of Britain.  So why did he and the rest of those revolutionaries decide to risk everything, as told to us in the Declaration of Independence, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, [God,] we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”?  These were men, (yes, men), who, more, even, than most men, had much to lose, but, unlike a rich man who failed to follow Jesus,* had a firm conviction- by faith- that they were doing the Lord’s work and that it would prosper the whole world when they succeeded.  And our nation did benefit the whole world, for a time.

But that time may be over because good men do nothing and we are allowing it to end, for now the enemy within invites the world to storm our gates and, unlike the minutemen who repelled invasion, we watch it from a couch.

The book also tells us:  Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain.   (Psalm 127:1)

Again, if there is to be a separation of church and state, with state dominating, would not John Hancock know it and refrain, as Governor, from invoking “…our LORD JESUS CHRIST?”  The separation was to require government to refrain from making law regarding an establishment of religion, and I still argue that this is best understood when “establishment” is read solely as a noun, not a verb.**

With no further comment from one not nearly worthy enough to call himself a Christian, (Spike), please enjoy John Hancock.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=18294   (At WallBuilders.com you can find evidence of the faith in Christ that this man and his contemporaries relied upon to take on the most powerful empire in all history.  Let there be no doubt, Jesus mattered to- and motivated- these men.)

Before I close, please allow me to express my thankfulness to God for the eyesight He has give me which allows me to see both the Beauty He created and, so that I know the truth, the Ugly which men have made.  I am also thankful that, from Him, I receive more than I could ever earn; for I am a sinner who surely deserves separation from Him, yet the sunshine and rain fall on me and my stomach is never long empty and I see more smiles than scowls during my days.  I am thankful for John Stadtmiller and all who bring us RepublicBroadcasting.Org for the risks they take and the work they do in keeping us apprised of both the horrors of a sometimes unlawful government and the hope that it might yet be overcome.  Also, I am more grateful than I am capable of expressing for RBN allowing me these pages.

And thank you for reading this,

Je suis Spike

• Mark 10: 21-22

** A portion of the first amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”   If this means that congress shall not establish a state religion, why would congress then go on to say that they would make no law prohibiting the free exercise of it?  May I paraphrase?  Congress shall not establish a state religion and congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of it (the non-existent state religion).  Does that make sense?  Congress shall not form committees of dumb-asses, but congress will not prohibit the free exercise of the (non-existent) committees of dumb-asses.  Ok, bad example, they form many such committees.  How about this?  Congress shall not establish a book club- and congress will not prohibit that (non-existent) book club from its free exercise.  Senseless, illogical and wrong is how the “establishment clause” is used against the people to deny the people the exercise of their supremely useful and harmless religion.

But would it not make sense if congress were to make no law regarding that which comprises religion: the praise of worshippers, the buildings in which they gather to worship, the tenets of their faith which harm no others, the works they feel compelled and impelled to take as directed by the object of their faith, their “religion?”  (And, by religion, they meant the recognition and praise of the Creator, Jesus as the Christ, not worship of any created thing- such as the earth- nor worship of any other, for they knew that there is no name under heaven by which you may be saved, only Jesus.)