Beware False Apostles of Americanism

“I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.”

Thomas Jefferson to John Adams upon the disestablishment of religion in Massachusetts (Works, Vol. iv., p. 301).

Intelligence Report: American Foundations #12
Beware The False Apostles of “Americanism”
May 18, 2016 | 09:16 GMT

BEWARE OF THE SPECIOUS CLAIM that America was founded by Christian men on Christian principles. The claim has long been touted by ideologues men (and women) who are in the business of falsifying information to suit their “noble” agenda. Their agenda includes other similar unsubstantiated and false claims made about the Catholic church.

These men and women (primarily Christian ideologues who correlate Christianity with the United States, capitalism, and the constitution) seem to have no problem distorting, changing, and twisting the Church’s sacred documents just as they mangle and pervert American historic documents so that they can present an untrue picture, a picture that matches their distorted script about God, history, current events and even the end of the world and a supposed pre-tribulation rapture.

False prophets such as these have difficulty distinguishing their religion from their politics. Somewhere along the line they conceived the idea that America is the “light of the world”, a nation with a God-given destiny to establish a “New Order of the Ages” or as it says on the nation’s currency, “Novus ordo seclorum. Men such as these place their political philosophy in front of their moral and spiritual theology. Then disguised as disciples of Christ, they attempt to foist their false political and messianic agenda on the world in the name of Christ. They are so convinced by the righteousness of their cause that they are willing to distort the truth in order to advance their highly cherished but fallacious world views.

Somehow, they seem to think that it is the will of God, the Supreme Law Maker and Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, that Americans should draft laws without Him, that He endorses the separation of church and state whereby He is shut out of the political, economic and social arenas, effectively denied a voice in the public affairs of the nation leaving it to elected officials to promulgate their own secular-statutory laws in disregard of the divine law given by God to mankind in both the Old and New Testaments.

Almost every American man woman and child has accepted this idea (the secularization of the state and promulgation of man-made laws rooted in the supposed sovereignty of the people rather than in the sovereignty of God). Popular sovereignty and the separation of church and state are liberal political slogans that have become sacred American dogma. Neoconservative politicians, who give requisite lip service to Christ, act like it is their sacrosanct duty to spread political, economic and social “Liberalism” aboard as if it were derived from God, when in fact, on many points, Americanism is antithetical to the laws given by God to govern His people – antithetical and deadly.

The ultimate consequence of this American dogma practically speaking (that is not theoretically, but practically, what in fact has, and is taking place) is the denial that the Gospel and the Church’s social teaching, (drawn from it) have any applicability in the broader political, social, and economic realm. These broad public realms were declared off-limits to the Church. As a result of the Framers privatization of religion, these realms have slowly become secularized and ultimately dehumanized “structures of sin” in a “culture of death“. As John Paul II indicated, in the absence of Christ we have created social, political, and economic “structures of sin” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 36-37-38-39-40). It is the exclusion of God from the public forum and the corollary rejection of divine law, inherent in the system bequeathed by the Framers that are the root causes of the problems that the church has condemned as “Americanism”.

By portraying the Founding Fathers as Christian men who bequeathed the nation a Christian Constitution, and then further insisting that it be treated as a sacred document, Americans have mistakenly replaced Divine Authority with human authority and elevated a secular man-made law over and above God-given divine law. Knowingly or not, we have exiled the omniscient and omnipresent God from the America political playing field and in the process institutionalized secular rule. This mistake is perpetuated by insisting that Founding Fathers, the “wise” and “virtuous” men who gave us a sacred Constitution, be continually placed on sacerdotal pedestals – including, wherever possible, church pedestals – when in fact, all they left us with is a secular Constitution subject to the whim of the “people” and to be freely interpreted by any political ideology that might suit the Justices. As long as the Founding Fathers are revered above the saints and the prophets or somehow judged to be equal in stature to them, we will continue to perpetuate the polysemous and ambiguous secular and philosophical ideas on which they founded this nation.

Love of country and patriotism are splendid assets; however, when people raise the Constitution with one hand and tout the bible in the other claiming they are both sacred documents from God, beware “Americanism”. Such people, in the guise of patriotism are often misguided and wayward “nationalists.”

Pope Leo XIII addressed these concerns in his encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostraeto in which he condemned several false ideas that Catholic prelates were introducing to the church in America; thereby slowly transforming her into an institution governed by, and therefore subject to, the same secular and democratic ideas that the United States government was founded upon, ideas such as majority rule, the cherishing of practical action and social work over prayer and contemplation, popular sovereignty, and the separation of church and state and a deficient idea of the “natural law’. Pope Leo was, in effect, attempting to protect the church from the false prophets of Americanism; these were the men (and women) who had blindly subordinated their faith to their politics, and were bringing the latter into the church rather than the former into the latter.

They quickly became advocates of “American Exceptionalism”, of liberal ideas such as the separation of church and state, and popular sovereignty. In the nation’s new public schools, curricula were established by anti-Christian atheists, such as John Dewey, to overcome the effects of too much Christianity. Due to the increased secularization of American education, virtue was increasingly understood as utilitarian excellence and the ability to achieve practical results strengthened by a democratic character marked by increased tolerance, nihilism, skepticism, and an ever increasing acceptance of moral relativity as evidenced by Dewey’s disdain for philosophy and Christian religion.

“There is no god and there is no soul. Hence, there is no need for the props of traditional (Christian) religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is dead and buried. There is no room for fixed law or permanent moral absolutes” (The Spiritual Perils of Modern Secular Education, Program VC1464, a video tape from Living his Life Abundantly).

The ideals and liberal values of the new secular government were slowly but inevitably incorporated in the curricula of newly created public schools until the privatized religious and moral sphere became more and more congruent with the secular version of morality introduced in the public sphere.

According to men like Dewey:

“The behavioral sciences are providing new “natural explanations of phenomena so extraordinary that once their supernatural origin was, so to say, the natural explanation.”

“Geological discoveries …have displaced Creation myths which once bulked large.” and

“The social sciences have provided a “radically different version of the historic events and personages upon which Christian religions have built” (John Dewey, A Common Faith, Yale University Press, 1934, pg 84.).

Making progress on all these fronts vis a vis Christianity, Dewey , as early as 1908, was able to proudly proclaim that the new civic religion of America was replacing the Christian religion:

“Our schools … are performing an infinitely significant religious work. They are promoting the social unity out of which in the end genuine religious unity must grow. …dogmatic beliefs (articles of Christian faith)…we see disappearing…. It is the part of men to… work for the transformation of all practical instrumentalities of education till they are in harmony with these (above) ideas” (John Dewey (1908) The Hibbert Journal, Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. Chronology of Education, pg. 11.).

The secular “experiment” undertaken by the Framers in 1787 bore its penultimate fruit in 1933, when John Dewey and a group of leading American intellectuals signed the “Humanist Manifesto”, which brought the slowly developing secular program into plain view; listed below are its more salient points:

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Man is a part of nature and that has emerged as the result of a continuous process.
The traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
The nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.
Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power of its achievement.

Clearly, educational framers such as Dewey set the nation’s schools on a secular path by promoting their own version of sacred dogma.Secular liberal dogmas in the guise of religion were to replace long held sacred beliefs; after successful implementation throughout the nation, it was America’s God-given task to carry these dogmas throughout the world.

Students therefore imbibed large droughts of “Manifest Destiny” a civic brew served up in civics classes throughout the nation, a brew so intoxicating that it was preached from church pulpits thereby successfully giving birth to a new civic-religion containing doctrines that in many ways stood in opposition to the doctrines given them by Jesus Christ. Inebriated and pumped with missionary zeal and love of country, they welcomed ideas about exceptionalism and zealously manned the ramparts when their teachers told them that it was their “manifest destiny” to spread Americanism abroad. They were so pumped with love of country that they failed to see the blasphemy in their newly acquired views that somehow America was the “light of the world” and the “city set on a hilltop” ordained by God to lead the nation of the world to freedom.

This is nothing but political hype repeated by zealous nationalists, men and women who place the Constitution on a pedestal along with the Holy Bible and then proceed to enthusiastically foist their erroneous political ideas on the rest of mankind; thereby zealously enslaving the world in the name of liberalism while claiming to set it free. Jesus died to make men free; no government can advance the cause of liberty without Him and especially without the Church that He commissioned for this purpose. Jesus is the way and the truth and the life, there is no other name under heaven by which men are saved; yet the Constitution demands that He remain out of the state’s business. A secular government can achieve nothing good for man without God; yet they demand the constitutional right to do everything without Him. When Christians put the Framers on a Sacred Pedestal, equate the constitution with the bible, and then support foreign policy more than they do Christian missionaries, we have a problem.

“Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it” (Psalm 127:1).

The Lord either builds the house or He doesn’t; we either cooperate with Him or we build a city without Him, the “city of man” rather than the “City of God.” Are the words of Psalm 127 just empty words or are they words of wisdom; if they are wisdom than we have acted like fools—it is clear that the Lord did not build the American house, nor was he even consulted.

When Benjamin Franklin proposed that the delegates assembled to draft the Constitution pray before they continued to work, 51 of the 55 delegates voted against the proposal. On June 28, 1787, Franklin registered a plea to begin each day with prayer to the “Father of Lights”. A simple and sane request made to a group of supposedly Christian men ended up in an overwhelming rejection. According to Franklin himself, 51 of the supposed Christian delegates did not think prayer necessary. In his own words:

“With the exception of 3 or 4, most thought prayers unnecessary.” (Ferrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, rev. ed., Vol. 1, p. 452.)

This is a true and not a distorted fact. A historical fact that helps us to understand why anti-clerical and anti-Trinitarian, John Adams could boast of a country built by reason alone without faith, without the assistance of divine grace, and certainly without the help of the clergy:

“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service (the writing of the constitution) had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven…it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived by the use of reason and the senses (not faith and the bible)…Thirteen governments founded on the natural (versus supernatural) authority of the people alone” (John Adams, “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1788).

The fact is that the “God of nature”, the god known by “reason” was the god of the Founders. They preferred the god of nature to Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Church, whom He divinely established to “feed His sheep and to shepherd His lambs” and to “teach all nations” in the name of the Holy Trinity. No, they preferred reason and reason’s god, the “God of nature.” Adams and Jefferson both told us this plainly enough:

“The question before the human race is, Whether the God of nature (the Deist, Masonic, Epicurean and Gnostic god) Shall govern the World by his own laws, or Whether Priests and Kings Shall rule it by fictitious Miracles? Or, in other Words, whether Authority is originally in the People? or whether it has descended for 1800 Years in a Succession of Popes and Bishops, or brought down from Heaven by the holy Ghost in the form of a Dove, in a Phyal of holy Oil” (John Adams)?[i]

No, the Lord who gave the world His Divine Law (old and new) was not consulted when the “Founders” established their own laws without Him; He was purposefully ignored. Despite the fact that America was a nation of Christians, Jesus is not mentioned one time in our nation’s supreme document[ii]. Consistent with this American commitment to the “God of nature” is the equally irreverent privatization of the Church under the guise of doing her and all Americans a big favor. In other words, Christ was “kicked out” and the deed was conducted with cunning arrogance.

Pope Pius XI recognized the absurdity of this kind of social and political arrogance in his encyclical, Quas Primas (1925) in which he quoted the Prophet Daniel who foretold the universal kingdom founded by Christ. If His kingdom is universal and respected by Christian men, it is to be expected that such men would enshrine it as a beacon for the nation rather than relegate it to the private sphere unsupported by laws, taxes, public education, statue or ordinance. Christ established a kingdom to stand forever, and the Framers were intent on building their own without Him.

“The kingdom that the God of heaven shall found, ‘shall never be destroyed, and shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44).

Pope Pius reminds us that after the resurrection, Jesus solemnly affirmed his omnipotence and conveyed His power and authority to His Church[iii]. He did not confer divine power on any secular nation, nor did He direct any nation to be a “City on a Hilltop” or a “Light to the World”. Those are things He delegated exclusively to His Church (Matthew 5:14) to whom He also delegated His own authority and power, something the Founding Fathers had a real difficult time understanding and respecting.

“…when giving to his Apostles the mission of teaching and baptizing all nations he took the opportunity to call himself king, conforming the title publicly, and solemnly proclaiming that all power was given to him in heaven and on earth.”

If, as Daniel foresaw, Christ established a kingdom that will never be destroyed and that will stand forever, why did we exclude Him, why did Jefferson and Adams believe that the Church established by Christ was suffering from a “mortal wound” and would soon die? Obviously, they were out of the spiritual loop. They excluded Christ because they envisioned America as His new church, his new kingdom and empire and themselves as a new priesthood. The new nation was to be governed exclusively by them and not by Catholic priests and Protestant clergy, against whom they had vowed “eternal” warfare.

John Adams referred to the Protestant ministers as “yahoos” the great enemies of “free inquiry” who should be endured no longer.

“And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY (Adams’ own emphasis)? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded.”[iv]

Jefferson concurred, the Christian clergy are:

“… the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.”[v]

Catholic priests and Protestant clergy were the great deceivers, the tyrants over the minds of men whom Jefferson had sworn upon the altar of God to eradicate:

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”[vi]

The Framers must have thought very highly of themselves. Likewise, Americans who believe the “Christian” myths about them probably believe themselves to be very special people, although more and more people around the world are having difficulty seeing it.

Christ’s kingdom is not of this world – that is, it is not founded on anyone’s political power; it is conveyed fully to His Church; the Church that our “Founders” excluded from public life and left to fend for itself without a dime for His cause and without any public show of support either from the schools from which He we also excluded or from the public dais from which He was forbidden. This was, and is, certainly a funny way to treat your King, an odd way to reverence the one whom you claim to serve.

If the Framers in the name of reason and reason’s god (the “God of nature”, on whom they built the new nation) removed Christ from the public arena and were at war with the Christian clergy (the so-called “Antichrist”)”, we can be quite sure who the “God of nature” is and who the men that profess loyalty to him are. Their words are untrustworthy. How can any authentic Christian clergyman claim that America is a holy nation founded by men who loved Jesus and therefore established a Christian foundation? The fact is (beside those who are just ignorant “blind guides”), men who stridently profess such things in the name of Christ are themselves enemies of Christ, dispensational bigots who have no problem forging documents and distorting facts to push their agenda and catch people unawares in the idolatrous trap of “Americanism”.

One of America’s unsung founders was Elias Boudinot. Boudinot was a president of the Continental Congress, a United States Congressman and from 1795 to 1805 he was the director of the U.S. Mint.

Boudinot was alarmed by the disregard for Christian principles by many leaders of the new American government;

“But has not America greatly departed from her original principles, and left her first love? Has she not also many amongst her chief citizens, of every party, who have forsaken the God of their fathers, and to whom the spirit may justly be supposed to say, “ye hold doctrines which I hate, repent, or else I will come unto you quickly, and will fight against you with the sword of my mouth.”[vii]

The fact is, the foremost founders were not Christians. The leading lights among them hated both the Trinity and the Church established by Jesus Christ. The current successors of these men who claim to be Christian ministers, ministers who tell us that the Founders were Christian, and that the Constitution is a Christian document, are wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15). Many are deceiving ministers who dress in sheep’s clothing; that is, in lay rather than clerical garb (because they have like Jefferson and Adams rejected the clergy and set themselves up as guides). Priests do not wear sheep’s clothing, i.e, the clothing of the flock they shepherd. They wear clerical garb. Wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing are lay ministers who wear business attire rather than ecclesial or liturgical attire. The truth is that these so-called Christian-American zealots do not have Jesus Christ for their God or the Church for their Mother; they have no king but Caesar; that is, their allegiance is to the Republic before it is to the Church, even though they claim to be minsters of Christ.

Not all who claim allegiance to Christ have allegiance to Christ, but only those who do the will of his Father.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you.^* Depart from me, you evildoers (Matt 7: 21-23).

Pope Saint Pius X saw threw the charade,

“We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker – the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization….It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants.” (St. Pope Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, April 15, 1910).

Because many of these self-styled “pastors” are miscreants, rebels and dreamers, it should come as no surprise that many so-called ministers, men who are supposed to be lovers of the truth and “ambassadors” of Jesus Christ, the way and the truth and the life”, seem to have no problem telling a lie to gain fame or to make a buck, or worse, in order to advance an agenda that makes them guilty of that which they accuse others: being unchristian.

The truth is, many of the so-called conservative fundamentalists and dispensationalists ministers who claim that “liberals” are distorting the facts about the Christian roots of American government are the real ones that are doing the distorting; their scholarship is often so offensive that it maked an honest man blush. Their output has become legion. Perhaps you have seen their websites, or read their books and media tracts claiming that the Unites States Constitution was written by stalwart Christian men totally committed to Christ and the building of a Christian nation.

What many of their readers are unaware of is that many of the quotes they use to defend their claims are fabricated, misunderstood, or misrepresented.

David Barton “Christian” Spokesman for America’s Christian Founding: Guru of Americanism

Among the most popular spokesmen is a Pentecostal minister by the name of David Barton, a Christian fundamentalist and founding president of a popular website called “Wall Builders”, a site devoted to defending America’s Christian foundations. Barton has been interviewed several times by Glenn Beck and is noted for tours of the capitol pointing out Christian heritage of the country to new congressmen and senators.

Barton wrote a book, “The Myth of Separation”, that was so full of errors and misquotes that it caused scholars across the country to leap into action; it was too outrageous to ignore, too opposed to expected standards of research and norms of scholarly writing, which are the hallmark of men and women who love truth, en and women who consider honest scholarship a mark of honor and dishonest a mark of reprobation. Consequently, numerous savants quickly engaged in research to verify the validity of Barton’s quotes. Unfortunately for Barton, many true scholars such as, Professor Robert S. Alley (University of Richmond) the man who authored “James Madison on Religious Liberty”, got involved. Prof. Alley received assistance from the editors of “The Papers of James Madison” at the University of Virginia who helped verify all of Barton’s quotes and misquotes.

Moreover,

“Firms devoted to Madison and Jefferson became involved, universities got involved and ultimately the Library of Congress was the final resting place for these quotes[viii].

Barton’s book does not contain an occasional error, the kind that are easily forgiven and which cause honest writer’s to etch deeply in their memory so as to avoid repeating them. Barton is either a dishonest minister playing scholar or an uneducated one making so many mistakes that no one should consider him a learned man and therefore avoid him as a leader and spokesman. True scholarship is time consuming and very difficult, every piece of evidence is verified, every source double checked and cross referenced. No one becomes learned or wise by simply reading; every time an in earnest student comes across information that he cannot verify or that he does not understand, he stops and does not continue again until he has mastered the content or idea. Every specious or questionable piece of information is cross referenced and double-triple checked for accuracy and veracity. Apparently, Barton did not know that such men and women exist; not everyone is unschooled as he apparently seems to think. Like most charlatans, Barton was eventually caught. When presented with the evidence, he

“…admitted to fabricating the quotes. He was (then) ordered to create a pamphlet that listed all his bogus quotes. Unfortunately that pamphlet has had almost zero impact on those who use the quotes daily in newspapers around the United States.”[ix]

Below are some of his more egregious misquotes. Fortunately, many people have become involved and this kind of scam scholarship is being exposed.

“Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.” – Benjamin Franklin
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!” – Patrick Henry
“The only assurance of our nation’s safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.” – Abraham Lincoln
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” – Holy Trinity v. U. S.
(Barton claimed this was a United States Supreme Court landmark case—in fact, the actual author is not the United States Supreme Court, but the Illinois Supreme Court (Richmond v. Moore, 1883). We are not concerned about state constitutions, which in many cases were influenced by Christianity, but with the secular federal Constituion. Not only is the quote misrepresented, Barton distorts the meaning of the Illinois court by leaving out other text from the same decision, text such as, “…a total severance of church and State is one of the great controlling foundation principles of our system of government.”
“The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” – Abraham Lincoln
“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader.” – Samuel Adams
“I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens.” – Thomas Jefferson
“There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet.” – Noah Webster
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” – George Washington
“The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory [sic] to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.” – Noah Webster
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves … according to the Ten Commandments of God.”– James Madison[x]

The only problem with these quotes is that none of them have ever been found among any of Founder’s authentic writings. Barton tried to excuse himself by blaming it on “secondary sources”. Perhaps this is a good excuse; however, any cross referencing or simple attempt to confirm the quotes should have raised a flag in Barton’s mind; perhaps he was cherry picking quotes as Pentecostals cherry pick scriptures to fabricate tales about the Catholic Church.

Barton, has earned rebuke from “Church and State Magazine”, which ran an article by Robert Boston who insisted that Barton’s fabrications were so egregious that they warranted a “Consumer Alert”.[xi] Barton has also received criticism from the “right” for “shoddy workmanship”. The Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (BJCPA) issued a critique of a Barton movie that highlighted most of the quotes. The BJCPA took Barton to task and hammered his video.[xii] They stated that his work is:

“… laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact.”[xiii] The Texas Freedom Network calls him “a pseudo-intellectual fraud whose twisted interpretations of history are little more than propaganda.”[xiv]

According to “people for the American Way”[xv]

“Such dim views of Barton’s work are based on repeated instances in which Barton cites quotes attributed to Founding Fathers that appear to support the right-wing view that the current model of separation of church and state was not at all what the Framers intended, only to have those quotes turn out to be unverifiable, if not utterly false.”

..

“Barton claimed that the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” originated in a speech made by Thomas Jefferson in 1801. Barton also claimed that Jefferson went on to say that “That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.” [xvi]

,o,

“Such a claim would be powerful, provided it was true. The only problem was that Barton was wrong on all accounts: the phrase regarding church and state came out of an 1802 letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association and the letter says absolutely nothing about keeping “Christian principles” in the government.”

The Jefferson Lies

Barton’s book, “The Jefferson Lies” was as objectionable as his book, “The Myth of Separation”. The former was hammered so hard that it had to be withdrawn from publication. Hard as this might be to swallow, apparently, it is Barton and not the “liberals” who has been telling the lies about Jefferson:

“In 2012, Barton’s New York Times bestseller, The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson, was voted “the least credible history book in print” by the users of the History News Network website.[xvii] A group of 10 conservative Christian professors reviewed the work and reported negatively on its claims, saying that Barton has misstated facts about Jefferson.”[xviii]

“In August 2012 Christian publisher Thomas Nelson withdrew the book from publication and stopped production, announcing that he had “lost confidence in the book’s details” and “learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported.”[xix]

According to Wikipedia

“In 1995, in response to criticism by historian Robert Alley, Barton conceded, in an online article titled “Unconfirmed Quotations“,[xx] that he had not located primary sources for 11 alleged quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (hence, the title of the article), but maintained that the quotes were “completely consistent” with the views of the Founders. (By 2007, the article listed 14 unconfirmed quotations.)[xxi]

According to Texas Monthly,

“Honesty has been a problem for Barton over the years and still is. After he issued his “unconfirmed quotes” retraction in 1995, for instance, a group of independent researchers went over The “Myth of Separation” with a fine-tooth comb and found more than one quote that Barton apparently fabricated through the flagrant misuse of ellipses.[xxii]

You can find Barton’s bio online at (http://www.wallbuilders.com/aboutus/bio/), where it says he’s an “author and historian.” The bio says he has a degree in Arts from Oral Roberts University and an honorary doctorate from the Pensacola Christian College. In his official bio at Ecclesia University, he refers to himself as Dr. Barton (https://ecollege.edu/davidbarton/). A bachelor’s degree does not qualify a person as a historian nor does an honorary degree make one a doctor. There is a reason why we have peer-reviewed journals, and why some men and women are authorized to place Dr. in front of their names. The degree signifies the highest attainable level of scholarship and academic respectability, which Mr. Barton and those who support his ideological travesty have not earned.

The fact is, dispensationalists and Pentecostals are losing the battle; they so dread falling behind that they are forced to misquote and offer shoddy scholarship to hold on to their false dreams of ruling the world, which is turning against them. These were the type of men Pope Francis was speaking about when he recently (November 30, 2015) stated:

“Fundamentalism is a sickness that is in all religions (even Catholic fundamentalism). Such people “believe they possess the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation, and doing evil.” “We have to combat it,” he said. “Religious fundamentalism is not religious, because it lacks God. It is idolatry, like the idolatry of money.”[xxiii]

The following links are provided for more information about this topic:

David Barton Falsely Claims He’s Been Labeled A Hate Group By The FBI

Does David Barton Have A Ph.D.? Even He Doesn’t Seem To Know

David Barton Falsely Claims Justice Breyer Acknowledged That ‘The Bill Of Rights Came Out Of The Bible’

David Barton: The Declaration Of Independence And Bill Of Rights Came Directly Out Of The Bible

David Barton Falsely Claims He’s Been Labeled A Hate Group By The FBI

David Barton and Bogus Ph.D

Videos a Common Sense Rebuttal

______________________________
END NOTES

[i] John Adams, Letter to John Taylor
[ii] The specious AD argument does not work. Some Christian ideologues who prefer ignorance to truth have scoured the document looking for just one reference to God. Finding none, they resort to the signature date which contains the words “In the year of Our Lord”. And then mockingly proclaim that the “secularists” are obviously wrong, as if this one miniscule thread redeems the entre document from being secular. This is a ridiculous argument, one worthy of only a footnote. By this logic, Hilary Clinton is a card carrying Christian because she heads or closes her correspondence with the Christian date. Or, conversely, the Portuguese who live before 1700 are not Christians because they did not begin using the AD style until the 18th century. Using the in conventional date is nothing but standard practice; it is not evidence from which to draw conclusions about such deep seated beliefs as faith in Jesus Christ, and all that He taught. New Agers even claim that Jesus is Lord along with a host of other gods and lords. Thomas Jefferson called himself a “Christian” because he believed in the morals taught by Jesus. But he denied His divinity, incarnation, and resurrection; most especially, he denied the Trinity, which disqualifies him from being a Christian no matter how much he might protest: “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.” (1 John 2:22). AD, moreover, is one of several dating mechanisms used throughout Masonry and Masons are not Christians because they deny the divinity of Christ as Jefferson did. (http://grandlodgeofiowa.org/docs/Masonic_History/AnnoLucis.pdf)

[iii] All legitimate nations do derive authority and power from God through the natural law. The Church, is the only society conferred power and authority be means of the divine law and also by means of the natural law.
[iv] John Adams, Letter to John Taylor
[v] Thomas Jefferson (1810) Letter to Samuel Kercheval
[vi] Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800
[vii] The Evangelical Founding Father: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/11/the-most-evangelical-founding-father/?ref_widget=related&ref_blog=anxiousbench&ref_post=what-can-we-learn-from-the-david-barton-controversy
[viii] The Barton Chronicles http://candst.tripod.com/bartchron.htm
[ix] Blair Scott Michigan Atheist http://michiganatheists.org/2015/04/27/david-barton-and-fake-quotes/
[x] ibid
[xi] http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm
[xii] Scott
[xiii] J. Brent Walker, “A Critique of David Barton’s Views on Church and State,” Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, April 2005
[xiv] Texas Freedom Network Education Foundation, “The Anatomy of Power: Texas and the Religious Right in 2006,” p.19
[xv] http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/david-barton-propaganda-masquerading-history#_edn21
[xvi] Rob Boston, “Sects, Lies and Videotape,” Church & State, Volume 46, No. 4, April 1993, pp 8-1
[xvii] Wikipedia, Schuessler, Jennifer (2012-07-16). “And the Worst Book of History Is “. New York Times. 2012-07-19.
[xviii] Wikipedia, Kidd, Thomas (August 7, 2012). “The David Barton controversy”. World (God’s World Publications, World News Group). Retrieved April 9, 2013.
[xix] Wikipedia, Kidd, Thomas (August 7, 2012).“The David Barton controversy”. World (God’s World Publications, World News Group). Retrieved April 9, 2013.
[xx] Blakeslee, Nate (September 2006). “King Of the Christocrats”. Texas Monthly 34 (9): 1. ISSN 0148-7736. Retrieved 2008-11-10.
[xxi] Barton, David. “Unconfirmed Quotations”. WallBuilders website. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007.
[xxii] (On page 248, for example, Barton pulled this quote from a Supreme Court of New York case called People v. Ruggles: “This [First Amendment] declaration … never meant to withdraw religion … and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law.” In the unedited version, however, it is abundantly clear that the “declaration” referred to is not the First Amendment, as Barton indicated in brackets, but an article of the New York state constitution.) In the vault, I finally got to take a closer look at a piece of plastic-sheathed parchment Barton had been waving around on the pastors’ tour in D.C., which he claimed was an example of Jefferson signing a document “In the Year of Our Lord Christ.” It was already pretty flimsy evidence that Jefferson was a Christian, but on closer inspection it appeared that Jefferson himself had not even written the words; the document was the nineteenth-century equivalent of a form letter. (Texas Monthly: http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/king-of-the-christocrats/).[xxiii] http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/11/30/pope-francis-says-he-is-not-losing-any-sleep-over-vatican-leaks-trial/

Summary of Our Method

New Era Reports and Analyzes world news and global politics from the framework of cultural history, demography, geographical constraints (geopolitics) and from the framework of philosophical and theological analysis including the various ways that religious and political leaders, and their ideologies and ideas influence world history, impact political decisions and inhibit or advance local, regional and global initiatives. Analysis of these factors enables us to understand political actions and to accurately extrapolate future trends. By integrally discerning the political-economic-social-spiritual ramifications implicit in these interrelated “signs of the times”, New Era provides robust Daily World News, insightful Quarterly Forecasts and in depth Weekly Intelligence Reports.

New Era Methodology

Theopolitical global intelligence is oriented toward understanding the underlying and oftentimes hidden or deeper causes of global events well enough to extrapolate a residual effect prior to its actualization. Intelligence forecasting involves more than simple reporting of isolated newsworthy events. Unlike news reporting, intelligence forecasting involves spiritual maturity and awareness of diverse philosophical, theological and political perspectives, as well as knowledge and understanding of historical occurrences that color the news and either increase or decrease its veracity and reliability depending on the mastery of these interrelated variables.

global information gatheringverification data analysis comparison and contrastsynthesislogical judgment culminating in an hypothesis that directs further research necessary to either reject or affirm the hypothesis. If the former. valuable information is provided, but no forecast is forthcoming. If the latter occurs, intelligence forecasting proceeds with presumed accuracy and predictive validity.

Summary of Intelligence Hierarchy

Broad Spectrum Information Gathering (the news-knowledge)
Verification (veracity – did it really happen and did it really happen as reported)
Analysis (what are the components and the meaning of each piece in itself)
Synthesis (making sense of all the data as a whole) assisted by
Logical Judgment (what does each piece mean in relationship to others and as a synthetic whole does it make logical sense-can it be built step by step into a logical conclusion that arises out of the variables by the rational work of the human mind)
Hypothesis Generated
Research to negate or affirm hypothesis
Forecasting (If the individual components are well understood and the derived hypothesis is logical and verified by further research, a logical forecast should be forthcoming. If not both logical and verified, something has been misunderstood, the whole process is skewed (biased), or a variable is missing. If any one or all of these latter 3 apply, forecasting is likely to be inaccurate and the hypotheses should be rejected or, if warranted archived for further future research.

A Nation of Christians but Not a Christian State

RETURN TO INTELLIGENCE REPORT – NEW ERA HOME PAGE – KOLBE FOUNDATION HOME PAGE

Masonic Liberty Imported to America by Her Sons

FOUNDING FATHERS: “SONS OF LIBERTY” NOT “SONS OF GOD” Part 3
“The Masonic Mystery of Liberty Imported to America by Her Sons”

Toga

Roman not a greek goddess:

The tablet in the Statue’s left hand has the date of American Independence: July 4, 1776. The date is written in Roman numerals and reads July IV MDCCLXXVI.

Poem lightening- golden door

Crown

Torch

Since liberty is a Masonic project, it is not surprising to find out that the Statue of Liberty is a Roman goddess veiled in pagan esoteric symbolism that helps us to understand the Founders infatuation with the Roman Republic and, more importantly, reveals her concealed intention to enslave a nation in the name of “liberty’ as she had done to the ancient Romans.

The Founders Infatuation with Rome

Besides sporting the popular colonial knickers and white stockings, the founding fathers were extremely fond of donning Roma attire and having toga parties or classical philosophical sessions at their Roman styled estates that stood firm on the banks of the Potomac. From youth they were brought up on the Greek and Roman classics. They were required to master Virgil, Cicero, Horace, Tacitus, Herodotus, Plutarch, Lucretius, and Thucydides. College entrance requirements included the ability to translate and expound the classical texts. Lessons about liberty and virtue were taught from the pages of Plutarch, Herodotus, Xenophon, Livy, and Polybius. Madison, Dickerson, Jefferson, Adams, Wilson, and Hamilton were all steeped in the classics. They were learned in Greek and Latin and students of classical literature, history, and philosophy.

Of all the heroes that George Washington could be compared to, he was most compared to the Roman General Cincinnatus and styled himself a Roman Stoic. Joseph Warren, the Grand Master of the Boston Lodge who sent Paul Revere on his midnight ride, modeled his oratory style on that of the great Roman orator, Marcus Tullius Cicero. In addition to being president, Thomas Jefferson was an architect who promoted the Roman Classical revival and believed the Roman style fitted to the new nation. He referred to America as the new “Roman Republic.” He designed the Capitol of Virginia and his home at Monticello on the Roman style. He referred to himself as a Roman Epicurean and considered the “doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” He also designed the Rotunda at the University of Virginia after the harmonic proportions (esoteric geometry) of the Roman Pantheon and stated that the American experiment was a unique endeavor that had not been seen since the days of Rome.

Esoteric Symbolism Contained on Statue of Liberty

Interestingly, Libertas is robbed in a toga, the dress of a Roman prostitute, it also helps to explain the infatuation of the nation’s founders, the so-called “Sons of Liberty” with the ancient Masonic plan to enslave those who honor her.

Significantly, toga parties were associated with prostitution – prostitutes (presumably slaves) wore only the toga. At the time of Cicero, free women wore a stola and palla. The toga was a mark of honor for a man and the mark of disgrace for a woman.

The Freemasons and Sons of Liberty

Beginning, with her first new slaves, the “Sons of Liberty” Libertas has spread her “free” Masonic rites far and wide. The Sons of Liberty were lured by promises of freedom to undertake a revolution against “tyranny” led on by a goddess who was herself a lying tyrant. Some among them seemed to have known what they were doing. Men like Jefferson and Adams were full willing to engage in a battle against Christianity, which they both said had enslaved humanity. They were the leading lights of the revolution. Like Eve, they had their eyes opened to knowledge attained by only the few adepts and master craftsmen who allow themselves to be seduced and turn their back on the Holy Trinity to accept a false god who promises enlightenment, esoteric wisdom by which they become cunning deceivers and vanguards of the revolution:

“God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil. The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom (enlightenment). So she took some of its fruit and ate it” (Genesis 3: 5-6).

Here it is apropos to recall that according to John Adams, the real revolution was,

“…in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations….This radical change in the (Christian) principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

Along with Jefferson and other Sons of Liberty, Adams insisted that the tenets of Christianity were for “fools”, thereby implying that he and others like him, were enlightened and wise enough to believe themselves chosen for the mission of freeing the world from the despotism of Christian clerics.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own….They have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.”[1]

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”[2]

These priests and Protestant clergy were the great deceivers, the tyrants over the minds of men whom Jefferson had sworn upon the altar of God to eradicate:

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”.[3]

Thus, John Adams referred to the Protestant ministers as “yahoos” the great enemies of “free inquiry who should be endured no longer.”

“And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY (Adams’ own emphasis)? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded.”[4]

Thus, Adams, Jefferson, et al, enlightened and rational men could no longer stand the impious heresies of the Christian clergy, whom they referred to them as the “real Anti-christ”:

“That rational men not being able to swallow their (the clergy’s) impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they (the clergy) raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.”[5]

The time had come, they thought, to go to war with Christianity:

“Cabalistic Christianity, which is catholic (sic) Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.”[6]

Libertas, in whose name the monster was being fought, had convinced such men to be at war with the true God, the Holy Trinity, whom Jefferson belittled as a:

“Hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads” (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Smith, 1822).

Because “cabalistic Christianity”, which had fabricated a monster for a god, had not yet expired, it was clear what the revolution was about:

“The question before the human race is, Whether the God of nature (the Masonic god) Shall govern the World by his own laws, or Whether Priests and Kings Shall rule it by fictitious Miracles? Or, in other Words, whether Authority is originally in the People? or whether it has descended for 1800 Years in a Succession of Popes and Bishops, or brought down from Heaven by the holy Ghost in the form of a Dove, in a Phyal of holy Oil?”[7]

The God of nature and his sons of liberty were about to thrown down the gauntlet in the face of the Holy Trinity and their sons of Mary, the Mother of the Church, the union of Catholic and Protestant clergy and all who strive to keep the commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

“Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” (Rev. 11:17).

Like Jefferson and Adams, lesser lights of the revolution also honored liberty and vowed war against Christian despots. Paul Revere, harbored “fierce resentment” toward both “tea profiteers” and toward “religious bigots (who) tried to fasten upon the minds of the people narrow ideas the trend of which would be to bring about a union of Church and State.”[8] Revere knew, as did all the Sons of Liberty” that he was involved in a revolution to overturn two hundred years of American history by introducing novel liberal ideas such as the separation of church and state, which Pope Pius X condemned as a “pernicious error” (encyclical Vehementer Nos) [9], popular sovereignty, and a secular constitution.

It is therefore no surprise at all that another Pope, Pius XI also condemned their plan:

“With Jesus Christ…excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away….The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it is no longer secure on a solid foundation.”

“As long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations.”

Like the French Philosophes, their foreign affiliates who planned their revolution in the salons of Paris, the Sons of Liberty, planned theirs in the taverns of Boston. In 1764, Paul Revere and a group of brothers from St. Andrew’s Lodge of Freemasons purchased the Green Dragon Tavern, which thereafter became their ale house, the philosophical hub of Boston’s free thinkers who entertained themselves while planning a revolution. The heart of the Boston club included Revere, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Dr. Joseph Warren, the Scottish Rite Mason who sent Paul Revere and William Dawes on their “Midnight Ride”.[10]

Things got so bad with the Freemasons that a short 50 years after the revolution an “Anti-Masonic” political party was established in 1828, arising out of allegations that freemasons were killing lodge brothers who turned against them, lodge brothers such as William Morgan who disappeared in 1826. The most famous Anti-Mason was Daniel Webster who referred to the Green Dragon tavern as “the headquarters of the revolution.” True Americans”, according to the anti-Masons, “had to organize and defeat this conspiracy. If good government was to be restored.”

The American Revolution resulted in the modern world’s first “experiment” with a secular commonwealth built on the principles of human reason divorced from faith and the Christian religion. Indeed John Adams boasted:

“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service (the writing of the constitution) had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven…it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived by the use of reason (alone) and the senses (not faith and the bible)…Thirteen governments founded on the natural (versus supernatural) authority of the people alone.”

Thus, Thomas Jefferson referred to the whole thing as an “experiment:

“I am not discouraged by [a] little difficulty; nor have I any doubt that the result of our experiment will be, that men are capable of governing themselves without a master.” [11]

Because the “experiment” has proved so successful, we now live in post-secular society long ago established on the principles of liberalism, a society in which the program of liberalism has spread so far that the principles of liberty and toleration that were necessary to plant and nurture the anti-Christian agenda of masonry have grown full blossom and the rotten fruit emanating from Libertas’ “Liberty Tree” can no longer be hidden – it has given birth, over an extended period of time, to what Saint John Paul II referred to as “structures of sin.”

“If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of “structures of sin,” which, as I stated in my Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people’s behavior.[12]

Thus the liberty tree planted in the 18th century has grown to great proportions in th 21st. Those who examine the world through a Geopolitical lens seldom if ever resort to such terms; however Theopolitics, because, it also employs philosophical and theological analysis, is able to use such a term as “structures of sin” because sin is certainly within the purview of theology. Without such a perspective, we will not be able to correctly analyze the disease and prescribe an anecdote nor to forecast correctly. John Paul II understood this

“Sin” and “structures of sin” are categories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils which afflict us.”

The root of the evils that afflict us is the revolutionary craze for “liberty” from which the Liberty Tree sprouted and then gave forth bad fruit, the fruit of deadly sins that has become the omnipresent diet of many people who having eaten from the tree so many times that moral, spiritual, and intellectual maladies have taken their root, and consequently, through their combined actions, have grown culturally pervasive until becoming structures of sin.

If we had examined the Liberty Tree carefully, we would have seen that it was a harbinger of death, of a culture of death. Looking critically at this tree honored by the Sons of Liberty, pictured to the left, we not only see intolerance, we also see bullying, assault, mockery, brutality, and death. Lady Liberty counsels tolerance to get her way, but is quick to resort to intolerance when she can get away with it. In France she resorted to the guillotine, herein the New World, the hangman’s noose seemed more appropriate.

Many have become so immune that they do not even notice, others out of fear or the “conspiracy of silence say nothing, through secret complicity” or indifferent. Still others “take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world.” There are those who see but “sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of a higher order.”[13]

In France, the Lady Liberty replaced the Virgin Mary in the cathedral at Note Dame in Paris. The Virgin Mary is immaculate, Lady Liberty impure.

Thus, we can understand the sentiments of many of the founders towards her son, sentiments that lead to the conclusion that it is wrong to assert that the Founders were not Christians, as many are doing. It is wrong to make such an assertion because they were more than non-Christian, they were anti-Christians. It was not enough to privatize religion. That was only a short-term solution. There were too many Christians in 1776 to implement that radical of a program; it would take time; nonetheless, the spirit of anti-Christ was in the air.

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2 John 1:7).

What does this make John Adams who, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson stated:

“The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with Episcopal and Presbyterian creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy (of God becoming man) is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”[14]

Adams, like other Freemasons, denied the divinity of Jesus; he preferred the “great Principle” (presumably the Masonic god of nature). The great Principle would never debase and humiliate Himself by “coming down to this little ball to be spit upon by the Jews.” Only someone like Jesus would do that.

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).

What does this make Thomas Jefferson, who in a letter to James Smith (1822) stated that the Holy Trinity (Father and Son) are a:

“Hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads”

“The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such person, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck”.

Further on, St. John tells us that:

“Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).

What does that make of Thomas Paine who in his best selling, Age of Reason stated:

“The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar” (Part II Section XVII).

This point seems to be rather simple:

Every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2-3).

The problem with Lady Liberty and her sons, the Freemasons, Epicureans, free thinkers, theosophists, in general with almost every leading light among the Founding Fathers and those who espouse liberalism is the rejection of the Holy Trinity and Christ’ church, Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic. Look high and low and you will find it difficult to locate a great name who does not have problems with some church or Christian creed, article of faith, or simply clerical authority. After reading Saint John below, ask yourself, what does that make all of them?

“We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit” (1 John 4:6).

Those who belong to God, to the Holy Trinity, through Jesus, with Him, and in Him, listen to His Church, “us”. Those who do not belong refuse to listen. Like their mother, the harlot, Lady Liberty, they are deceivers whose time has come. Those who say that the Founding Fathers are not Christians are dead wrong, they Founding Fathers are Antichristians whose boasts, such as the following are quickly coming to an end. The Women with the Immaculate Heart is about ready to “triumph” and to usher in an Era of Peace thereby dethroning Lady Liberty, the whore of Babylon, enslaved by lust and license, the false fruit of her false liberty.

Jefferson and Adams might have been correct about the Catholic Church being weakend, but incorrect in assessing the wound as “mortal”. They were right to admire her exceedingly “strong constitution” but wrong again to think she might be taken down in a few centuries. The centuries have past and she is waxing strong, while the liberals are in retreat.

“While you watched, a stone was hewn from a mountain without a (human) hand being put to it, and it struck its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces. The iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold all crumbled at once, fine as the chaff on the threshing floor in summer, and the wind blew them away without leaving a trace. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (Daniel 2:34- ).

The stone which Daniel, in a vision, saw drawn from the mountain without a (human) hand being put to it” was a vision for the “future”. The mountain is Jesus Christ and the stone that in the future would break into pieces all the kingdoms of the earth is the Catholic Church of who He is the corner stone rejected by the builders.

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

The gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church. Hells gates cannot withstand the onslaught of Christian men and women that is coming at them even now.

You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.

Papl condemnations masonry

[1] Thomas Jefferson (March 17,1814) Letter to Horatio G. Spafford,

[2] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia: https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/christian-god-three-headed-monsterquotation

[3] Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800

[4] John Adams, Letter to John Taylor

[5] Thomas Jefferson (1810) Letter to Samuel Kercheval

[6] John Adams, (July 16, 1814) Letter to Thomas Jefferson.

[7] John Adams, (June 20, 1815) Letter to Thomas Jefferson

[8] http://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/artjan02/paul_revere.htm

[9] “There is no power but from God and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he who resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God” (Romans 13).

[10] Warren had been raised in the Lodge of St. Andrew and was Grand Master of the Massachusetts Provincial Grand Lodge from 1769 until his death in 1775. Scottish Rite Masonic Museum and Library: http://nationalheritagemuseum.typepad.com/library_and_archives/joseph-warren/

[11] Let http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html ter to T. B. Hollis (1787)

[12] ibid

[13] ibid

[14] Letter dated January 22, 1825. The section in bold is attached from fragment of an earlier letter from Adams to Jefferson written January, 17 1820)

Roman Goddess “Libertas” Imported to America

American Foundations:
Intelligence Report #9

Intelligence Report #8. Who exactly is this “God of Nature” on whose altar Jefferson had sworn to fight the Christian clergy in the name of “liberty” and how exactly are the God of Nature and liberty related? Perhaps we can gain some insight into this highly relevant question by examining the “Statue of Liberty”. This historical monument was constructed by the French as a gift to the Americans in respect for their defense of liberty. Significantly the two – French and Americans-were allies in the business of “revolution”. The American phase of Revolution was fought in the New World against some of the same enemies the French were fighting in the old.

(Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 of the United States Constitution — there would be no Ancien Regime in America) and that sought to limit the Church and Her clergy by the establishment of a “Secular Regime” in which religion was reduced to the private forum and laws were derived from reason without any influence from God or His representatives on earth. They were to be constrained behind a “wall of separation” that kept them out of the courts, out of the senate, out of house, the executive branch, out of public schools, out of post offices and even public parks, in short out of the pubic affairs of the nation, which is basically just about all the affairs.

Declaration of Independence to the Second Continental Congress by which it was solemnly approved and promulgated.

Sundered chains representing Freedom at feet of Liberty

“The clergy…believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800)

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, also harbored the same hostility for the clergy whom he referred to as “spiritual tyrants” who help kings to “subvert the public liberty”.

Ancient Romans, esp. of the Republic, had a unique reverence for various virtues some of which (Justice, Courage, and Piety, to name a few) overtime, they personified and then elevated to the status of a god or goddess. Liberty was a Roman concept, a personified and highly esteemed virtue before she ever became a goddess. Her apotheosis was not achieved until 232 BC. By that time, her cult had grown popular enough to justify her being enshrined in the Roman pantheon. This feat was accomplished by Tiberius Gracchus, a Roman Tribune stepped in democratic virtue and military valor and known to history as a “hero of the people”. Gracchus, as champion pro populo, favored agrarian land reform and distribution (distributive justice) for which he was eventually assassinated by wealthy patricians. It was this Gracchus, known for his bravery and military valor and eminence in virtue, who constructed the first temple to Libertas on Aventine Hill.

Babylonian Goddess Ishtar (Astarte) and Lady Liberty

[1] Perhaps the seven spiked crown above Liberty’s head represents the 7 crowns of light in esoteric lore, perhaps she is a rendition of the pagan goddess Astarte, perhaps – it is all conjecture. It is highly improbable, that a righteous champion of the people, like Tiberius Gracchus, would favor a debauched libertine or promote a whoring goddess. However, a debauched libertine and friend of esotericism like Publius Clodius Pulcher (58 BC) might.

Like Tiberius Gracchus, Clodius Pulcher also constructed a famous temple to Libertas on the Palatine Hill on the site of the former home of Marcus Tullius Cicero, the eminent philosopher, renowned statesman, and outstanding exemplar of Roman virtue. Clodius was a political enemy of Cicero who, when given the opportunity, had Cicero’s palatial home burnt and demolished in order to construct a new and second temple to Libertas.

“Yet the case is simply this, that to me the supreme good seems to be in the soul” (Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations).

(Romans 1:22). Ignorant of what was going on in their own souls, they lustfully sang the praises of “liberty”, the goddess who stealthily bound them while they foolishly proclaimed their freedom.

(Pope Leo XIII, Libertas).

Lady Liberty wearing the pileus along with her good servant General George Washington who led a Revolution to set men and women free in her name).

(Matthew 4: 8-10).

Libertas has given out many favors and can be imagined laughing with mocking scorn at her enslaved adepts who boast of their esoteric wisdom and at the blind commoners who unceasingly demand freedom while unawares they fastened chains of slavery upon themselves.

“Whoever commits a sin is the slave of sin” (John 8:34).

“Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness” (Romans 6:16)?

Cicero, living during the time of transition from virtuous Roman Republic to increasingly decadent Empire, understood the difference between liberty and license. Thus, the political intrigue that ensued between himself and Clodius helps us understand how the virtue Liberty, of the early Roman Republic, became associated with decadence, immorality, cabal, and esotericism, the Libertas of the Roman Empire.

Who is She that Sets Free by Warring against the Church of God^?

Cicero is ranked among the eminent men of Classical Antiquity, a lover of wisdom and an advocate of traditional Roman values. It is clear from his arguments against Epicurus[2], a Roman philosopher whom he accused of being a connoisseur of pleasure, that Cicero was a man of high philosophical ideals and refined moral acuity, which allowed him to properly enjoy the pleasures of life while advancing in knowledge and moral strength in the company of classical philosophers of whom he was speaking when he stated that.

“We love everything that is true, that is to say, that is faithful, simple, consistent, and we hate what is vain, false and deceitful, such as fraud, perjury, cunning and injustice.”[3]

“Publius Clodius, out from his saffron dress, from his headdress, from his Cinderella slippers and his purple ribbons, from his breast band, from his dereliction, from his lust, is suddenly rendered a democrat.”[5]

Cicero accused Clodius of sexual perversion, including the attempt to seduce the wife of Caesar and incestuous relations with his own sisters.

[6]. Clodius, the tyrant, according to Cicero, had the

[9]

Thus, because of Clodius’ tyranny, debauchery, and ignominy, the goddess Liberty, which was once a cause for celebration and courageous imitation now evoked “lamentations” because, according to Cicero, the people who used to “pack” his house to acquire wisdom and engage in philosophical discussions were displaced by Clodius who then filled the sanctuary with free thinking libertines full of lust and its attendant, foolishness. The new Libertas, Cicero argued, must be banished so that not only his house, but all of Rome could be returned to its original splendor. According to Latin scholar, Matthew Roller (2010), this was the motive behind Cicero’s appeal to the “pontifces”: that the sanctuary dedicated to Libertas be deconsecrated and the house returned to him so that the household gods, the virtuous icons of traditional Rome, could also return. Clodius had dethroned true religion and enthroned a fraudulent one in its place by placing a prostitute in the sanctuary and calling her Liberty[10].

[11] (the use of sexual liberation to gain dominance).

AN EXCELLENT INTERVIEW WITH E. MICHAEL JONES, AN AUTHORITY ON ZIONISM AND POLITICAL DOMINANCE BY MEANS OF SEXUAL LIBERATION (9:10)

Libertas is a goddess who promises liberty but is in actuality a tyrant who enslaves her votaries by means of libido dominandi[11] (the use of sexual liberation to gain dominance). Thus, Boller (2010) Concludes:

“These structures (Cicero’s household gods and Clodius’ Shrine to Libertas) symbolically replicate the political struggle between them…. The debate… concerns which of the two alternative symbol-systems that have been attached to these structures—the Clodian interpretation or the Ciceronian one—will triumph politically.”[12]

“Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one” (Matt. 5:37).

(Book 7 Chapter 26).

Rome had devolved from the virtuous glory days of the Republic admired by Cicero, to become a “savage animal” full of “lust and gluttony”.

“…man, if he have not virtue, is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. (Politics, Book I).

Because she exiled her philosophers, lost her love of authentic virtue, and engaged in a cruel pogrom of Christian saints, the city of Rome was depicted by St. John the Evangelist as the “mother of fornications, and the abominations of the earth”, she rode on the back of a scarlet beast, the decadent Empire, which she ruled with a perverted mind, a mind intoxicated with the blood of martyrs.

The Torches of Nero, by Henryk Siemiradzki: Nero an Effeminate Glutton using Christians as Human Torches to Satisfy his Concupiscence

(Rev. 17: 3-6).

that you saw and the beast will hate the harlot; they will leave her desolate and naked; they will eat her flesh and consume her with fire. For God has put it into their minds to carry out his purpose and to make them come to an agreement to give their kingdom to the beast until the words of God are accomplished. The woman whom you saw represents the great city that has sovereignty over the kings of the earth” (Rev 17:12-18).

Cicero, did not have the mystical vision of John, but foreseeing Rome poorly protected and being destroyed by an effeminate ruler like Clodius, he fulminated:

“If the Republic must be destroyed by someone, let it at least be destroyed by a real man.”[13]

By Rome’s end, Libertas, the Great Mother of Harlots” had turned all her votaries into slaves of sin (John 8:34). She then had to go underground as her temples and those all the false gods of the pagan world, which was previously under the rule of demons, (1 Corinthians 10:19-20) were demolished and replaced by Christian shrines, churches, monasteries, basilicas, convents, and cathedrals in a new empire called “Christendom”.

(Psalm 96:5)

(John 12:31 and 14:30). Under his dominion men and women practiced demonology, witchcraft, wizardry, idolatry and human sacrifice, which was abhorrent to Christian men who could stand it no longer.

The Church had exposed these shameful things, which blinded the minds of men

(2 Corinthians 4:4).

(Matthew 26:56-52) and to His other members, in this case, the non-ordained but priestly Christian men and women of Europe, to spread His kingdom by the sword of justice, which they wielded for God as avengers chosen to execute His wrath upon evildoers:

(Romans 13:1-5).

(1 Peter 2: 13-14).

Libertas and those who did evil in the sight of God and in the sight of men fought with frenzied anger against the warriors of Christendom, but they did not prevail. Libertas was then bound for a thousand years (Rev. 20:2), during which time, saintly kings such as King Saint Stephen of Hungary, King Saint Wenseslaus of Bohemia, King Saint Vladimir of Russia, Blessed Emperor Charlemagne of France and Germany,[14] King Pelayo of Spain, King Saint Canute of Denmark, King St. Olaf of Norway, and Alfred the Great of England (to name a few) traversed the globe routing Libertas, establishing the temporal domains of His kingdom and thereby freeing her slaves, and the slaves of other deceitful demons, from the shackles of spiritual death by which she bound them in the false name of liberty.

When her thousand years were up, counted from the temporal establishment of Christendom by Charles the Great (Charles assumed the throne in 768 and was crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 1800, although already recognized as de facto temporal arm of the church before that time), Libertas along with all the other demons, was let loose under the headship of Satan (Rev 20:3). His time being short, she immediately unleashed a barrage of cunning deceit in order to hasten a Revolution in the name of Liberty. Because the “Great Mother” is a deceiver, she worked in the shadow of secret societies, wherein she hatched her clandestine plan. Then, in the name of Liberty, she spewed forth a barrage of enticing propaganda intended to bring about a new order of the ages (Novus Ordo Seclorum), an era of slavery initiated in the deep darkness known as the “Enlightenment”. She was emblazened with the desire to restore her ancient mystery cults in place of the liturgical mysteries of the Christian faith that were (and still are) regent as she reemerged from the abyss.

By the time she emerged, the Christian men and women of Europe had already spread the faith so far and wide that it would take nefarious skill, innuendo, monetary allurement, false promises of enlightenment, sexual liberation, her old use of double meaning and other surreptitious crafts to bring about a revolution in her name.

Lady Liberty as Depicted by the French

THE STORY OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY

Finished in France, Lady Liberty was shipped to, and reassembled in, America after which she was erected, set in place, and solemnly dedicated on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, October 28, 1866. Consistent with Jefferson’s and Adam’ theme of emancipation from religious tyranny, especially that of the Catholic Church (as demonstrated in Part One), it is not surprising to find (as we will below) that from A-Z,[15] the Statue of Liberty (“Liberty Enlightening the World”) was a Masonic project. The Masons had vowed to destroy the Catholic Church, the “Bride of Christ”, the Prince of Peace who had come to set men free from false pagan gods and goddesses like Libertas.

(Inimica Vis, Decmber 8, 1892).

As a seminarian (1917), Kolbe, the future saint, witnessed a massive anti-Catholic demonstration marking the 200th anniversary of the foundation of the Grand Lodge of London, apparently the first Masonic Lodge in the modern world.

[16]

Kolbe later indicated that it was the Masons who were the lackeys, the lackeys of Zionism:

“These men [the Freemasons] believe that they are the ones who will rule everything, but let us hear what is written in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Protocol n. 11 states: ‘We will create and put in effect the laws and the governments … in opportune moments … by means of national rebellions. … What we want is that the multitudes, disoriented by the revolt, still in a condition of terror and uncertainty, should understand once and for all that we are so strong, so untouchable, so powerful that in no way will we take into account their opinions and wishes. Instead we are ready and able to crush with irresistible power their manifestations at any moment and in every place. … Then, in fear and trembling, they will close their eyes to everything and await the consequences.”

[17]

[19]

Zionists are a small congregation of men, purportedly Jews that reject both Jesus and their own Jewish faith. They call themselves Jews but do not practice or promote their faith. A recent gathering of over 10,00 Jewish rabbis in New York city loudly attests to this reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMQ9C6vni0w

[20]

(Rev. 3:9 and Rev. 2:9) The “Synagogue of Satan” is an assembly of individuals who “say they are Jews, and are not.”

“Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee” (Rev. 3:9).

“I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” (Rev. 2:9).

True Jews, men who live their faith are not a threat, they are not haters of God and thus more likely to become Christians. Crafty false Jews could feign becoming Christians, in which case they would be lying twice – once about being Jewish and twice about accepting Christ. Clearly, there are false Christians and false Jews, what they have in common is rejection of Christ. The synagogue of Satan, however, is composed of false Jews, false Christians belong to “lodges” and “temples”.[21]

In the Gospels, Jesus also referred to false Jews as sons of the devil:

(John 8:42-44).

“Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God” (2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4).

“And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north.” (Isaiah 14:13).

Thus, not only is it becoming increasingly clear who Libertas is, it is very clear why Bartholdi planned to have her “tower over the steeple of Trinity Church, then the tallest building on the New York skyline”, he wanted Lady Liberty, like Lucifer, to ascend above the Holy Trinity.

As stated above, from inception to completion, the Statue of Liberty was a Masonic project that began with the laying of the cornerstone in 1884. The ceremony, as recalled by Robert C. Singer, the Deputy Grand Master of New York’s Grand Lodge, is outlined below:

“Brother Richard M. Hunt, principal architect of the pedestal, presented the Working Tools to M. .W. . William A. Brodie, Grand Master, who in turn distributed them to the Grand Lodge officers.”

“By traditional ceremony, the cornerstone was then tested and being found, square, level and plumb, the Deputy Grand Master completed the work by applying the mortar and by having the stone lowered firmly into place. The Grand Master then struck three blows with the gavel and declared the stone duly laid.”

Dedication Day arrived two years late, October 28, 1886, which was declared a holiday in New York City.

“The main speaker was Chauncey M. Depew, United States Senator, railroad president, one of the most famous orators in American history, and an active member of Kane Lodge 454.

(Rev. 18:23).

Pope Leo XIII confirms this perspective, or rather his perspective is confirmed by this Intelligence Report: The Freemasons he says are:

(Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884).

_______________________________________

ENDNOTES

[2] See: Tullius Cicero, Book Two Treatise “On The Chief Good And Evil” (Treatise de Finibus).

[3] Marcus Tullius Cicero, Book Two Treatise “On The Chief Good And Evil” (Treatise de Finibus).

[4] Ancient History: http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/people/a/bingleycicero_3.htm

[6] ibid

[7] ibid

[8] Castor, along with his brother Pollux, was accredited with helping to found the Roman Republic, whole virtues Cicero was trying to preserve.

[9] Matthew B. Roller

http://krieger.jhu.edu/classics/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2013/06/Demolished-Houses.pdf

[11]inbed video )

[12] ibid

[13] Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Clodius_Pulcher#cite_note-28

Quoted from “Reliquarian” http://reliquarian.com/2013/05/02/charlemagne-saint-of-the-holy-roman-empire/

[15] That is, from conception to finish including, idea, finance, creation, shipping, reassembly, installation and ceremony

[16] Immaculata Magazine (May/June, 1996): https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.HTM

[17] M. Kolbe to the Masons: You are Controlled by the Jews: http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/G_010_Kobe_Jewsl.html

In Polish: forumdlazycia Tradycji Katolickiej: https://forumdlazycia.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/sw-maksymilian-maria-kolbe-o-masonerii-i-zydach-pisma-wybrane-wyboru-i-opracowania-dokonal-dr-stanislaw-krajski/

[18] Virtual Jewish Library: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/lazarus.html

[19] http://www.masonicworld.com/education/articles/Masonry-and-the-statue-of-liberty.htm

[20] Jews United against Zionism Website:http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm