Bill Fortenberry's Blog
About the Author
What is it that makes a nation a Christian nation? Is it the number of her citizens which attend church and show support for Christian causes? Is it the determination of her leaders to follow the doctrines of Scripture? Is it the formation of a national Christian church? What makes a nation Christian? Many nations have met the above criteria in the past while claiming to be Christian, and several of them have genuinely adhered to a biblical philosophy at different points throughout their history, but America has a different basis for her claim of Christianity.
She has never had an established, national church. The majority of her populace has often been oppsed to Christian causes. She has endured lengthy periods of low church attendance, and her leaders have often strayed from the edicts of God's Word. Yet from the moment of her conception as a handful of Brittish colonies to the present day, she has more closely followed the principles of the Bible than any of her peers. Why? Because America's claim to Christianity is not founded on the religion of her people but on that of her laws.
Other nations that have claimed to be Christian have been primarily aristocratic in their legal systems. As such, those nations have only been Christian to the extent that their supreme ruler has been content to follow the Bible. A few supposedly Christian nations have been established under democratic governments, but as democracies are subject to the supreme whim of the majority, so those nations have adhered to the precepts of Christianity only so much as the majority of their citizens have agreed to those precepts.
America, on the other hand, is neither an aristocracy nor a democracy but rather a republic. She is governed by a supreme document rather than a supreme ruler, and thus she will be a Christian nation to the same extent that her ruling document is Christian. That document is the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the supreme law of the land to which all other laws must agree. If the Constitution is found to be a Christian document, then America will remain a Christian nation for as long as she remains under the rule of the Constitution.
I have previously demonstrated forty-eight portions of this supreme law which are in complete agreement with the principles of the Bible. No other legal document in the history of mankind (save the Bible itself) can claim such agreement with God's Word, nor is any other document of any sort so similar to the edicts of the Constitution. Is it any wonder that American humanists are against the literal application of our nations ruling document? The Consitution and the Bible are inseparably linked, and any nation governed by this document can proudly claim the title of "One Nation Under God."
- Bill Fortenberry
www.IncreasingLearning.com
She has never had an established, national church. The majority of her populace has often been oppsed to Christian causes. She has endured lengthy periods of low church attendance, and her leaders have often strayed from the edicts of God's Word. Yet from the moment of her conception as a handful of Brittish colonies to the present day, she has more closely followed the principles of the Bible than any of her peers. Why? Because America's claim to Christianity is not founded on the religion of her people but on that of her laws.
Other nations that have claimed to be Christian have been primarily aristocratic in their legal systems. As such, those nations have only been Christian to the extent that their supreme ruler has been content to follow the Bible. A few supposedly Christian nations have been established under democratic governments, but as democracies are subject to the supreme whim of the majority, so those nations have adhered to the precepts of Christianity only so much as the majority of their citizens have agreed to those precepts.
America, on the other hand, is neither an aristocracy nor a democracy but rather a republic. She is governed by a supreme document rather than a supreme ruler, and thus she will be a Christian nation to the same extent that her ruling document is Christian. That document is the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the supreme law of the land to which all other laws must agree. If the Constitution is found to be a Christian document, then America will remain a Christian nation for as long as she remains under the rule of the Constitution.
I have previously demonstrated forty-eight portions of this supreme law which are in complete agreement with the principles of the Bible. No other legal document in the history of mankind (save the Bible itself) can claim such agreement with God's Word, nor is any other document of any sort so similar to the edicts of the Constitution. Is it any wonder that American humanists are against the literal application of our nations ruling document? The Consitution and the Bible are inseparably linked, and any nation governed by this document can proudly claim the title of "One Nation Under God."
- Bill Fortenberry
www.IncreasingLearning.com
The Democratic Party has repeatedly claimed that the cost of doing nothing is too high to justify the rejection of national health care, but is that really true? Most conservatives have simply accepted this statement as true choosing to argue not over the need for health care reform but over the method of reform. I would like to take just a moment to do what no other conservative has been willing to do. I am going to publicly claim that our capitalistic health care system is in the peak of health. It is operating at maximum efficiency, and there is nothing wrong with it. I can prove this bold claim in the same way that each and every one of you can prove it – through my own personal experience. The current administration is fond of defending its positions with sob stories, so let me present you with mine.
I am a hard working American with a wife and a young son. My wife works the full-time position of wife and mother for which she is paid the usual salary. In 2006, my income was a mere $15,000 per year with no benefits. During that year, we faced two major medical expenses. Our son was born shortly before our first anniversary, and then, just six weeks later, my wife suffered a brain hemorrhage. According to the Democrats, a family of three with an income of just $15,000 can’t even afford a doctor’s visit, much less the expense of two major medical events in the same year; but by the end of the year, all of our medical expenses had been paid in full.
How is that possible? Well, I’m glad you asked. It’s possible because the American health care industry is the most cost effective health care in the world. American citizens reap the benefits of a balance of powers between themselves, their doctors, and the insurance companies. You see, if an insurance company were to charge more for its services than its customers want to pay, then those customers are free to change to a different insurance provider. Thus the insurance companies already have an incentive to keep their prices low. They cannot charge more than their customers are willing to pay.
Likewise, the doctors must keep their prices to a minimum, for if a doctor begins to charge too much, he runs the risk of the insurance companies dropping him from their list of supported doctors. If the insurance companies become too miserly in their payouts, they also run the risk of doctors removing them from their list of supported insurance companies. This delicate balance of powers allows the doctors to obtain the payment that they need with as little cost to the patient as possible. In fact, a survey performed by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that while health care spending in the US reached 2.3 trillion dollars in 2007, the average cost to the individual was only $275 per month. In other words, the average American spends more on his car every month than he spends on his health.
Do we really need health care reform? No, what we really need is to renew our reliance on the capitalism which has blessed this land with over 400 years of prosperity. We need to embrace the free-market competition which brought us prescription drugs for just $4. Our health care system is thriving and healthy. Let’s keep it that way.
I am a hard working American with a wife and a young son. My wife works the full-time position of wife and mother for which she is paid the usual salary. In 2006, my income was a mere $15,000 per year with no benefits. During that year, we faced two major medical expenses. Our son was born shortly before our first anniversary, and then, just six weeks later, my wife suffered a brain hemorrhage. According to the Democrats, a family of three with an income of just $15,000 can’t even afford a doctor’s visit, much less the expense of two major medical events in the same year; but by the end of the year, all of our medical expenses had been paid in full.
How is that possible? Well, I’m glad you asked. It’s possible because the American health care industry is the most cost effective health care in the world. American citizens reap the benefits of a balance of powers between themselves, their doctors, and the insurance companies. You see, if an insurance company were to charge more for its services than its customers want to pay, then those customers are free to change to a different insurance provider. Thus the insurance companies already have an incentive to keep their prices low. They cannot charge more than their customers are willing to pay.
Likewise, the doctors must keep their prices to a minimum, for if a doctor begins to charge too much, he runs the risk of the insurance companies dropping him from their list of supported doctors. If the insurance companies become too miserly in their payouts, they also run the risk of doctors removing them from their list of supported insurance companies. This delicate balance of powers allows the doctors to obtain the payment that they need with as little cost to the patient as possible. In fact, a survey performed by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that while health care spending in the US reached 2.3 trillion dollars in 2007, the average cost to the individual was only $275 per month. In other words, the average American spends more on his car every month than he spends on his health.
Do we really need health care reform? No, what we really need is to renew our reliance on the capitalism which has blessed this land with over 400 years of prosperity. We need to embrace the free-market competition which brought us prescription drugs for just $4. Our health care system is thriving and healthy. Let’s keep it that way.
The Biblical Foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America
A Study by Bill Fortenberry
My fellow countrymen, in spite of the many thousands of deferences to the Christian God and His Holy Word which our founding fathers etched into the very stones of this great nation, it has been oft and publicly proclaimed that our country was founded on human ingenuity alone and that it was the intent of our fathers that we should continue forever without the aid of Heaven. While the preposterousness of such a claim should be obvious to any student of history, I have had the great misfortune of discovering that many of our citizens have come to accept this colossal deception. It is my eternal hope that the following exposition may forever dispel any trace of these lies from our shores.
In this study, I have attempted to reveal the religious foundations upon which the framework of our nation's Constitution rests. Within the following pages, you will discover that not a single major portion of the supreme law of our land is without biblical precedent; and indeed, the significance of many seemingly minor portions, once viewed in light of their biblical foundation, is immediately increased to a level deserving of their mention in this great document.
Without a doubt, there will be many arguments presented against this conclusion, and I wish here to circumvent one such argument which I believe may prove to be the greatest hindrance to your understanding.
It may, perhaps, be argued that any correlation between the Constitution and the Bible is merely a matter of circumstance; that the two share similarities only because they both provide laws for the governing of a country and that any two such codifications must of necessity have many points in common. In response to this argument, let me challenge the dissenter to produce any other document of law with which our constitution shares as many correlations. He will not be able to do so, for there is no other nation in the history of the world whose government has been so closely fitted to the instructions of God.
Let me further remind the dissenter that the unintentional occurrence of such a correlation would be even stronger evidence of the hand of God in our nation's founding, for which would be the greater power, to persuade men to willingly follow a plan written down for their constant perusal or to cause men to conform to that plan with neither their knowledge nor their consent? The answer is obviously the latter, but in either case the biblical foundation of the Constitution cannot be denied. I have attempted to present it clearly and concisely for all to see, and it is my fervent prayer that it will forever change your understanding of our country's Christian heritage.
1. Article 1, Section 2 - "No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years." The age limits which the constitution places upon those wishing to obtain government positions is founded upon the wisdom expressed in Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4 in which great woe is pronounced against a nation that is ruled by children.
2. Article 1, Section 2 - "No person shall be a representative who shall not have… been seven years a citizen of the United States." Under this law all members of the House of Representatives must be American citizens. This concept of limiting government positions solely to the citizens of a country is based on the example of the nation of Israel. In Exodus 18:21 as well as in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, it is stated that the elders of Israel were elected from among the people.
3. Article 1, Section 2 - "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand." The Great Compromise which led to the bicameral legislature of America is foreshadowed by Israel's own bicameral system. In their system, the elders of Israel stood in the place of the House of Representatives and were likewise apportioned according to the populations of the tribes. Deuteronomy 1:15 reveals that the appointment of the elders of Israel was based upon an enumeration of the members of each tribe.
4. Article 1, Section 2 - "The House of Representatives… shall have the sole power of impeachment." The power of impeachment has been recognized in Israel since the removal of their first king from office as recorded in I Samuel 13:13-14, and that power was implemented on several occasions recorded in the Old Testament in accordance with the statement in Proverbs 16:12 that "it is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness." The concept of impeachment is also illustrated in the New Testament in that the church had the authority to remove a pastor from office as explained in Galatians 1:9 and I Timothy 5:19-20.
5. Article 1, Section 3 - "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state." The second house of our bicameral legislature is also based on the example of Israel. Numbers 1:1-16 presents a list of the princes of Israel which were chosen to stand with Moses as representatives of the people. In contrast to the elders of Israel, each tribe had equal representation among the princes.
6. Article 1, Section 3 - "Two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof." Though this stipulation was later amended to allow a public election of the senators, the original wording of the Constitution finds its source in God's direct appointment of the princes of Israel in contrast to the election of the elders as explained in Numbers 1:1-16.
7. Article 1, Section 3 - "No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years." The implementation of an age limit upon senators also has its origin in the pronunciations of Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4.
8. Article 1, Section 3 - "No person shall be a senator who shall not have… been nine years a citizen of the United States." Membership in the Senate is also limited solely to citizens of the United States. In Numbers 1:4, God explained to Moses that the princes of Israel were to be citizens of Israel.
9. Article 1, Section 5 - "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." Under this section, the members of each house of Congress are declared immune from the criticism of the other house. This same principle is found in the Scriptures in Paul's question to the Romans. In Romans 14:4 he asks, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" and answers, "to his own master he standeth or falleth."
10. Article 1, Section 5 - "Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings." This requirement that congress record all legal proceedings is established on the biblical example of the recorders of ancient Israel. These recorders are mentioned in five Old Testament passages, I Samuel 8:16, I Samuel 20:24, I Kings 4:3, II Kings 18:18 and II Chronicles 34:8.
11. Article 1, Section 6 - "The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services." The requirement that government officials be paid for their service to their country is directly founded upon the teachings of Scripture. The command, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn," given in Deuteronomy 25:4 is explained in I Corinthians 9:9-14 and I Timothy 5:18 as a command that those who provide a service should receive due compensation for that service.
12. Article 1, Section 6 - "They shall… be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses." The legal immunity provided to the members of congress is based on the teaching of Christ in Matthew 12:5 that the priests of Israel were provided immunity from the Sabbath laws so that they could perform the duties of their office unhindered.
13. Article 1, Section 6 - "For any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place." This precursor to the freedom of speech provided in the first amendment is based on the teachings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 7:21-22 and on the prophecy recorded in Isaiah 29:20-21.
14. Article 1, Section 8 - "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes." The power of the government to collect taxes has been recognized in the Bible from Joseph's reign in Egypt recorded in Genesis 41 to Christ's instruction to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars" in Matthew 22:17-21 and to Paul's command that we "render to all their dues" in Romans 13:7.
15. Article 1, Section 8 - "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In accordance with this law, Congress was to provide a single process through which citizenship could be obtained by anyone who wished to become an American. Israel also had a "uniform rule of naturalization" by which any stranger could become a Jew. Their process of naturalization which consisted of circumcision and observance of the Passover is outlined in Exodus 12:48. The Israelites also had a process by which those born in the land would become citizens by birth in the third generation as explained in Deuteronomy 23:7-8. The Church in the New Testament also has a single rule of naturalization for all those who wished to become citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. That rule which consists only of salvation is outlined in Ephesians 2.
16. Article 1, Section 8 - "To establish… uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." Bankruptcies, like naturalization, are to be governed by a single national law. This was also the case in ancient Israel where all bankruptcies were governed by the law given in Leviticus 25 which established the practice of a year of jubilee.
17. Article 1, Section 8 - "To coin money, regulate the value thereof… and fix the standard of weights and measures." This law is based on the biblical mandate to have a just weight as given in Leviticus 19:35-36, Deuteronomy 25:13-16 and Proverbs 11:1.
18. Article 1, Section 8 - "To establish… post roads." The permission given to congress to establish post roads was foreshadowed by God's commandment that the Israelite government establish highways between the six cities of refuge. This commandment, given in Deuteronomy 19:3, provides a biblical precept for a government funded system of roadways.
19. Article 1, Section 8 - "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The legal basis of America's copyright system is founded on the biblical teaching that a man should be allowed to live on the fruits of the service which he provides. This principle is explained in I Corinthians 9:9-14 and I Timothy 5:18.
20. Article 1, Section 8 - "To declare war." The right of governments to declare war is well established in the Bible, and Israel's right to do so is expressly stated in Numbers 31:3 and Deuteronomy 20:10-12.
21. Article 1, Section 8 - "To… make rules concerning captures on land and water." This right is also well documented throughout Scripture, but specific instances of its application can be found in Numbers 31:25-31 and I Samuel 3:24.
22. Article 1, Section 8 - "To raise and support armies." This right stems directly from the right to declare war, and it is founded on God's instructions to Moses to raise an army from among the Children of Israel in Numbers 31:4-6.
23. Article 1, Section 8 - "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union." The power of the government to enforce the law is founded on the explanation given in Romans 13:1-5 that such enforcement is ordained of God for the punishment of evil.
24. Article 1, Section 9 - "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended." The right of habeas corpus has been recognized in the Bible from the oldest of its books, for it is the right which Job wished for and which he was granted when he requested that he be provided with a daysman to stand between him and the judgment of God as recorded in Job 9:33. That right is repeatedly mentioned throughout the Bible including New Testament references in I Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:25 and I John 2:1; and it is the core doctrine of Scripture from which the whole of Revelation emanates.
25. Article 1, Section 9 - "No bill of attainder… shall be passed." This restriction of legislative power is also founded on the Scriptures, for in Deuteronomy 1:17, the judges in Israel were instructed to "hear the small as well as the great"; an instruction which is oft repeated and which when disregarded marked one as an unjust judge as evidenced in Luke 18.
26. Article 1, Section 9 - "No… ex post facto law shall be passed." According to the Romans 2:12-15, only those who sin in the law are judged by the law: those who do not have the law cannot be judged thereby. This scriptural doctrine is the foundation of the constitutional restriction against ex post facto laws.
27. Article 1, Section 9 - "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another." This law demanding equality on a state level stems directly from the biblical doctrine of individual equality as referenced in Proverbs 28:21 and James 2:1-9, and it follows the example of the mutual respect shared among the twelve tribes of Israel.
28. Article 1, Section 9 - "A regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time." This philosophy of accountability is based on the biblical teaching that we must all give an account for our actions as explained in Romans 14:12, Matthew 18:23, Luke 16:1-8 and I Corinthians 4:2.
29. Article 1, Section 9 - "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States." The denial of the nobility in America stems directly from the biblical teaching found in Matthew 23:8-10 and Job 32:21 that we are neither to seek after such titles nor to grant them to others.
30. Article 2, Section 1 - "The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot… The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President." Our Electoral College system is very similar to the election system established in Israel in many aspects. According to II Samuel 5:3, II Chronicles 23:2-3 and many other passages, the kings of Israel were chosen jointly by the elders of Israel and by the congregation as a whole.
31. Article 2, Section 1 - "No person except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of President." The requirement that the President of the United States be a natural born citizen is identical to the biblical mandate recorded in Deuteronomy 17:14 that any King of Israel must also be a natural born citizen of that nation.
32. Article 2, Section 1 - "The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation." The presidential compensation is based on the teaching to not muzzle the ox which treadeth the corn as explained in I Corinthians 9:9-14 and I Timothy 5:18.
33. Article 2, Section 1 - "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: - 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" The terms of the presidential oath are nearly the same as those outlined for the kings of Israel in Deuteronomy 17:18-20. Those kings, like the President, were required to preserve and protect the law of the land.
34. Article 2, Section 2 - "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." The position of Commander in Chief has been long recognized as one of the responsibilities of the head of state, and that recognition is not without mention in the Scriptures. From Moses to Joshua to David, the Bible always places the responsibility of the nation's armed forces on the shoulders of its leader. This great responsibility was acknowledged publicly in I Samuel 8:20 when the Children of Israel first chose to have a king.
35. Article 2, Section 2 - "He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States." The power herein granted to the President to make nominations is founded on a similar practice of kings of Israel as it is evidenced in I Kings 4:1-19.
36. Article 3, Section 1 - "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The judicial system of America is securely established on the biblical model of the courts of Israel as described in Deuteronomy 1:16-17 and Deuteronomy 16:18-20.
37. Article 3, Section 1 - "The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour." The requirement that judges maintain good behavior is based on an identical command given to the judges of Israel in Deuteronomy 16:20.
38. Article 3, Section 1 - "The Judges… shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation." This law establishing payment for our Judges is founded on the biblical teaching of I Corinthians 9:9-14 and I Timothy 5:18.
39. Article 3, Section 2 - "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." The right to a trial by jury is also predicated on the example of Israel. Israel's reliance on a jury system can be found in both Numbers 35:24-26 and Joshua 20:6.
40. Article 3, Section 3 - "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies." This definition of treason was a precursor to the freedom of speech which was later to be expressly granted by the first amendment. It is based on the teachings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 7:21-22 and on the prophecy recorded in Isaiah 29:20-21.
41. Article 3, Section 3 - "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act." This law is nearly identical to that given by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15 which also required the testimony of at least two witnesses for convictions.
42. Article 4, Section 1 - "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is based on God's instruction to Israel to have one manner of law within their borders as explained in Leviticus 24:22 and Exodus 12:49.
43. Article 4, Section 2 - "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This guarantee of privileges stems directly from an application of the scriptural principle of the body of Christ as explained in I Corinthians 12:12-26.
44. Article 4, Section 2 - "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up." This cooperation between states in matters of extradition is founded on the instructions given in Deuteronomy 19:11-12.
45. Article 6 - "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution." The decision to honor all the debts accrued under the previous government system was made in recognition of the biblical command given in Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 to "pay that which thou hast vowed."
46. Article 6 - "The Constitution, and all laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land." This recognition of a supreme law of the land is based on the same recognition given by Israel to the Law of God. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 17:18-20 and Proverbs 30:6, the Law given by Moses superseded all laws which may be given by men.
47. Article 6 - "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." As strange as it might sound, the prohibition against the use of a religious test is also founded on the Bible; for in the laws concerning the choosing of a king given in Deuteronomy 17:14-20; in the laws concerning the election of elders given in Deuteronomy 1:13 and Exodus 18:25; in the laws concerning the appointment of the princes given in Numbers 1:1-16; in all the Law of God, there is not one religious test given as a requirement for holding office.
A Study by Bill Fortenberry
My fellow countrymen, in spite of the many thousands of deferences to the Christian God and His Holy Word which our founding fathers etched into the very stones of this great nation, it has been oft and publicly proclaimed that our country was founded on human ingenuity alone and that it was the intent of our fathers that we should continue forever without the aid of Heaven. While the preposterousness of such a claim should be obvious to any student of history, I have had the great misfortune of discovering that many of our citizens have come to accept this colossal deception. It is my eternal hope that the following exposition may forever dispel any trace of these lies from our shores.
In this study, I have attempted to reveal the religious foundations upon which the framework of our nation's Constitution rests. Within the following pages, you will discover that not a single major portion of the supreme law of our land is without biblical precedent; and indeed, the significance of many seemingly minor portions, once viewed in light of their biblical foundation, is immediately increased to a level deserving of their mention in this great document.
Without a doubt, there will be many arguments presented against this conclusion, and I wish here to circumvent one such argument which I believe may prove to be the greatest hindrance to your understanding.
It may, perhaps, be argued that any correlation between the Constitution and the Bible is merely a matter of circumstance; that the two share similarities only because they both provide laws for the governing of a country and that any two such codifications must of necessity have many points in common. In response to this argument, let me challenge the dissenter to produce any other document of law with which our constitution shares as many correlations. He will not be able to do so, for there is no other nation in the history of the world whose government has been so closely fitted to the instructions of God.
Let me further remind the dissenter that the unintentional occurrence of such a correlation would be even stronger evidence of the hand of God in our nation's founding, for which would be the greater power, to persuade men to willingly follow a plan written down for their constant perusal or to cause men to conform to that plan with neither their knowledge nor their consent? The answer is obviously the latter, but in either case the biblical foundation of the Constitution cannot be denied. I have attempted to present it clearly and concisely for all to see, and it is my fervent prayer that it will forever change your understanding of our country's Christian heritage.
1. Article 1, Section 2 - "No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years." The age limits which the constitution places upon those wishing to obtain government positions is founded upon the wisdom expressed in Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4 in which great woe is pronounced against a nation that is ruled by children.
2. Article 1, Section 2 - "No person shall be a representative who shall not have… been seven years a citizen of the United States." Under this law all members of the House of Representatives must be American citizens. This concept of limiting government positions solely to the citizens of a country is based on the example of the nation of Israel. In Exodus 18:21 as well as in Deuteronomy 1:13-15, it is stated that the elders of Israel were elected from among the people.
3. Article 1, Section 2 - "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand." The Great Compromise which led to the bicameral legislature of America is foreshadowed by Israel's own bicameral system. In their system, the elders of Israel stood in the place of the House of Representatives and were likewise apportioned according to the populations of the tribes. Deuteronomy 1:15 reveals that the appointment of the elders of Israel was based upon an enumeration of the members of each tribe.
4. Article 1, Section 2 - "The House of Representatives… shall have the sole power of impeachment." The power of impeachment has been recognized in Israel since the removal of their first king from office as recorded in I Samuel 13:13-14, and that power was implemented on several occasions recorded in the Old Testament in accordance with the statement in Proverbs 16:12 that "it is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness." The concept of impeachment is also illustrated in the New Testament in that the church had the authority to remove a pastor from office as explained in Galatians 1:9 and I Timothy 5:19-20.
5. Article 1, Section 3 - "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state." The second house of our bicameral legislature is also based on the example of Israel. Numbers 1:1-16 presents a list of the princes of Israel which were chosen to stand with Moses as representatives of the people. In contrast to the elders of Israel, each tribe had equal representation among the princes.
6. Article 1, Section 3 - "Two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof." Though this stipulation was later amended to allow a public election of the senators, the original wording of the Constitution finds its source in God's direct appointment of the princes of Israel in contrast to the election of the elders as explained in Numbers 1:1-16.
7. Article 1, Section 3 - "No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years." The implementation of an age limit upon senators also has its origin in the pronunciations of Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4.
8. Article 1, Section 3 - "No person shall be a senator who shall not have… been nine years a citizen of the United States." Membership in the Senate is also limited solely to citizens of the United States. In Numbers 1:4, God explained to Moses that the princes of Israel were to be citizens of Israel.
9. Article 1, Section 5 - "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." Under this section, the members of each house of Congress are declared immune from the criticism of the other house. This same principle is found in the Scriptures in Paul's question to the Romans. In Romans 14:4 he asks, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" and answers, "to his own master he standeth or falleth."
10. Article 1, Section 5 - "Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings." This requirement that congress record all legal proceedings is established on the biblical example of the recorders of ancient Israel. These recorders are mentioned in five Old Testament passages, I Samuel 8:16, I Samuel 20:24, I Kings 4:3, II Kings 18:18 and II Chronicles 34:8.
11. Article 1, Section 6 - "The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services." The requirement that government officials be paid for their service to their country is directly founded upon the teachings of Scripture. The command, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn," given in Deuteronomy 25:4 is explained in I Corinthians 9:9-14 and I Timothy 5:18 as a command that those who provide a service should receive due compensation for that service.
12. Article 1, Section 6 - "They shall… be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses." The legal immunity provided to the members of congress is based on the teaching of Christ in Matthew 12:5 that the priests of Israel were provided immunity from the Sabbath laws so that they could perform the duties of their office unhindered.
13. Article 1, Section 6 - "For any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place." This precursor to the freedom of speech provided in the first amendment is based on the teachings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 7:21-22 and on the prophecy recorded in Isaiah 29:20-21.
14. Article 1, Section 8 - "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes." The power of the government to collect taxes has been recognized in the Bible from Joseph's reign in Egypt recorded in Genesis 41 to Christ's instruction to "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars" in Matthew 22:17-21 and to Paul's command that we "render to all their dues" in Romans 13:7.
15. Article 1, Section 8 - "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In accordance with this law, Congress was to provide a single process through which citizenship could be obtained by anyone who wished to become an American. Israel also had a "uniform rule of naturalization" by which any stranger could become a Jew. Their process of naturalization which consisted of circumcision and observance of the Passover is outlined in Exodus 12:48. The Israelites also had a process by which those born in the land would become citizens by birth in the third generation as explained in Deuteronomy 23:7-8. The Church in the New Testament also has a single rule of naturalization for all those who wished to become citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. That rule which consists only of salvation is outlined in Ephesians 2.
16. Article 1, Section 8 - "To establish… uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." Bankruptcies, like naturalization, are to be governed by a single national law. This was also the case in ancient Israel where all bankruptcies were governed by the law given in Leviticus 25 which established the practice of a year of jubilee.
17. Article 1, Section 8 - "To coin money, regulate the value thereof… and fix the standard of weights and measures." This law is based on the biblical mandate to have a just weight as given in Leviticus 19:35-36, Deuteronomy 25:13-16 and Proverbs 11:1.
18. Article 1, Section 8 - "To establish… post roads." The permission given to congress to establish post roads was foreshadowed by God's commandment that the Israelite government establish highways between the six cities of refuge. This commandment, given in Deuteronomy 19:3, provides a biblical precept for a government funded system of roadways.
19. Article 1, Section 8 - "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." The legal basis of America's copyright system is founded on the biblical teaching that a man should be allowed to live on the fruits of the service which he provides. This principle is explained in I Corinthians 9:9-14 and I Timothy 5:18.
20. Article 1, Section 8 - "To declare war." The right of governments to declare war is well established in the Bible, and Israel's right to do so is expressly stated in Numbers 31:3 and Deuteronomy 20:10-12.
21. Article 1, Section 8 - "To… make rules concerning captures on land and water." This right is also well documented throughout Scripture, but specific instances of its application can be found in Numbers 31:25-31 and I Samuel 3:24.
22. Article 1, Section 8 - "To raise and support armies." This right stems directly from the right to declare war, and it is founded on God's instructions to Moses to raise an army from among the Children of Israel in Numbers 31:4-6.
23. Article 1, Section 8 - "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union." The power of the government to enforce the law is founded on the explanation given in Romans 13:1-5 that such enforcement is ordained of God for the punishment of evil.
24. Article 1, Section 9 - "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended." The right of habeas corpus has been recognized in the Bible from the oldest of its books, for it is the right which Job wished for and which he was granted when he requested that he be provided with a daysman to stand between him and the judgment of God as recorded in Job 9:33. That right is repeatedly mentioned throughout the Bible including New Testament references in I Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 7:25 and I John 2:1; and it is the core doctrine of Scripture from which the whole of Revelation emanates.
25. Article 1, Section 9 - "No bill of attainder… shall be passed." This restriction of legislative power is also founded on the Scriptures, for in Deuteronomy 1:17, the judges in Israel were instructed to "hear the small as well as the great"; an instruction which is oft repeated and which when disregarded marked one as an unjust judge as evidenced in Luke 18.
26. Article 1, Section 9 - "No… ex post facto law shall be passed." According to the Romans 2:12-15, only those who sin in the law are judged by the law: those who do not have the law cannot be judged thereby. This scriptural doctrine is the foundation of the constitutional restriction against ex post facto laws.
27. Article 1, Section 9 - "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another." This law demanding equality on a state level stems directly from the biblical doctrine of individual equality as referenced in Proverbs 28:21 and James 2:1-9, and it follows the example of the mutual respect shared among the twelve tribes of Israel.
28. Article 1, Section 9 - "A regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time." This philosophy of accountability is based on the biblical teaching that we must all give an account for our actions as explained in Romans 14:12, Matthew 18:23, Luke 16:1-8 and I Corinthians 4:2.
29. Article 1, Section 9 - "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States." The denial of the nobility in America stems directly from the biblical teaching found in Matthew 23:8-10 and Job 32:21 that we are neither to seek after such titles nor to grant them to others.
30. Article 2, Section 1 - "The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot… The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President." Our Electoral College system is very similar to the election system established in Israel in many aspects. According to II Samuel 5:3, II Chronicles 23:2-3 and many other passages, the kings of Israel were chosen jointly by the elders of Israel and by the congregation as a whole.
31. Article 2, Section 1 - "No person except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of President." The requirement that the President of the United States be a natural born citizen is identical to the biblical mandate recorded in Deuteronomy 17:14 that any King of Israel must also be a natural born citizen of that nation.
32. Article 2, Section 1 - "The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation." The presidential compensation is based on the teaching to not muzzle the ox which treadeth the corn as explained in I Corinthians 9:9-14 and I Timothy 5:18.
33. Article 2, Section 1 - "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: - 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will… preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" The terms of the presidential oath are nearly the same as those outlined for the kings of Israel in Deuteronomy 17:18-20. Those kings, like the President, were required to preserve and protect the law of the land.
34. Article 2, Section 2 - "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." The position of Commander in Chief has been long recognized as one of the responsibilities of the head of state, and that recognition is not without mention in the Scriptures. From Moses to Joshua to David, the Bible always places the responsibility of the nation's armed forces on the shoulders of its leader. This great responsibility was acknowledged publicly in I Samuel 8:20 when the Children of Israel first chose to have a king.
35. Article 2, Section 2 - "He shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States." The power herein granted to the President to make nominations is founded on a similar practice of kings of Israel as it is evidenced in I Kings 4:1-19.
36. Article 3, Section 1 - "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The judicial system of America is securely established on the biblical model of the courts of Israel as described in Deuteronomy 1:16-17 and Deuteronomy 16:18-20.
37. Article 3, Section 1 - "The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour." The requirement that judges maintain good behavior is based on an identical command given to the judges of Israel in Deuteronomy 16:20.
38. Article 3, Section 1 - "The Judges… shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation." This law establishing payment for our Judges is founded on the biblical teaching of I Corinthians 9:9-14 and I Timothy 5:18.
39. Article 3, Section 2 - "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." The right to a trial by jury is also predicated on the example of Israel. Israel's reliance on a jury system can be found in both Numbers 35:24-26 and Joshua 20:6.
40. Article 3, Section 3 - "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies." This definition of treason was a precursor to the freedom of speech which was later to be expressly granted by the first amendment. It is based on the teachings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 7:21-22 and on the prophecy recorded in Isaiah 29:20-21.
41. Article 3, Section 3 - "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act." This law is nearly identical to that given by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15 which also required the testimony of at least two witnesses for convictions.
42. Article 4, Section 1 - "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is based on God's instruction to Israel to have one manner of law within their borders as explained in Leviticus 24:22 and Exodus 12:49.
43. Article 4, Section 2 - "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." This guarantee of privileges stems directly from an application of the scriptural principle of the body of Christ as explained in I Corinthians 12:12-26.
44. Article 4, Section 2 - "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up." This cooperation between states in matters of extradition is founded on the instructions given in Deuteronomy 19:11-12.
45. Article 6 - "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution." The decision to honor all the debts accrued under the previous government system was made in recognition of the biblical command given in Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 to "pay that which thou hast vowed."
46. Article 6 - "The Constitution, and all laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land." This recognition of a supreme law of the land is based on the same recognition given by Israel to the Law of God. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 17:18-20 and Proverbs 30:6, the Law given by Moses superseded all laws which may be given by men.
47. Article 6 - "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." As strange as it might sound, the prohibition against the use of a religious test is also founded on the Bible; for in the laws concerning the choosing of a king given in Deuteronomy 17:14-20; in the laws concerning the election of elders given in Deuteronomy 1:13 and Exodus 18:25; in the laws concerning the appointment of the princes given in Numbers 1:1-16; in all the Law of God, there is not one religious test given as a requirement for holding office.
An Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama
Dear Sir,
I am writing this brief letter to inform you that you will not be receiving my vote on November fourth of this year. I have duly considered your position on many different issues, and I must admit that I find your plans somewhat frightening. I fear that were you to gain the office of the president at this time, it would spell the end of freedom for our nation. I wish that I had time to explain to you all the various and multitudinous implications of your proposed philosophies, but I do not. I will satisfy myself instead with the abasement of that policy which poses the greatest threat to our nation, namely, your desire to turn our country toward socialism.
You have stated that “the free market has failed us.” You have claimed that it is the government’s responsibility to step in and set up a new economy. You have explained that “the burdens and benefits of this new economy have to be spread evenly across the economy” and that you want to “spread the wealth around.” Such comments are nothing less than pure, unadulterated socialism. They could readily have proceeded from the mouth of Karl Marx himself, and indeed, they are synonymous with his philosophy of, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
You have justified your socialistic position through an unjust condemnation of what has become known as the ownership society. You claim that it “ignores our history” and that “in our past there has been another term for it �" Social Darwinism �" every man or woman for him or herself.” You have here taken two opposites and claimed that they are equal; but in actuality, the ownership society was once known as free enterprise, and it is based on that great protestant work ethic which made America the nation that she is today: “If a man will not work then neither should he eat.” It was this system of private property and individual responsibility that saved our ancestors from starvation and ruin, and those who accept this philosophy have demonstrated that they have indeed learned from our nation’s history. Social Darwinism, on the other hand, has always been against the free market system, and every implementation of Darwinism on a national scale (Germany, Russia, China, etc.) has followed the path of socialism to produce a communistic society. The two systems are total opposites, and interestingly enough, the one which you condemn is, in reality, the very one which you propose. Such gross mischaracterizations are a classic ploy of socialistic regimes. Vladimir Lenin admitted as much when he said that, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience.” This sounds remarkably similar to your own admission that “when you're running for president, you're going to do some sinning.”
You will undoubtedly seek to further justify your position by arguing that the current economy is failing and that change is necessary because “someone working full-time today in a minimum wage job does not earn enough to raise out of poverty.” I can personally testify to the invalidity of such an argument. The so-called poverty line for a family of three is $18,000 per year. If both parents work full-time, making minimum wage after June of 2009, they will gross more than $30,000 per year. With a house payment of $1,000, car payments of $200, plus insurance payments of $200, and utility payments of $200 per month, they will still have $900 per month left over. This is a very livable scenario. For the past three years, I have earned less than $20,000 per year as the sole bread winner for my family, and I was able to bring my family of three out of this so-called poverty. During that time, we never missed a single meal, we were never late in paying a single bill, and we enjoyed a very full and happy life. You, yourself, are a perfect rebuttal of this argument. According to your own testimony, you have gone from being a poor kid living on welfare to one of the wealthiest men in America running for the most influential office in the world. What greater testament could there be to the success of America’s current economic system?
I find it very strange that one who claims to have studied constitutional law could ever bring himself to embrace an economic philosophy which so blatantly contradicts the supreme law of this great land. Do you know nothing of the history of your philosophies? Socialism has already been tried in America. It was attempted in Jamestown in 1607 and failed miserably. Alexis de Tocqueville condemned your theories in the 1800’s stating that “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Less than 100 years later, Winston Churchill, a man well acquainted with the evils of socialism, would agree with him by claiming that “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” And even more recently Margaret Thatcher recognized that “to cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.” Throughout history, those fighting for freedom have always recognized socialism as their enemy, and the enemies of liberty have gladly welcomed socialism as an ally in that fight.
Such enemies include Vladimir Lenin who stated that “the goal of socialism is communism,” and Karl Marx who claimed that “the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.” Surely you must realize that your policies have placed you in the same camp as some of the worst government leaders in the history of the world, leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung. Surely you must realize that you are dancing to the tune of men like John Strachey who proposed that “It is impossible to establish Communism as the immediate successor to Capitalism. Accordingly, it is proposed to establish Socialism as something which we can put in the place of our present decaying Capitalism. Hence, Communists work for the establishment of Socialism as the necessary transition stage on the road to Communism.” You cannot possibly be ignorant of the similarity between your policies and those of ACLU founder, Roger Baldwin, who admitted: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
Is communism your goal also? I cannot help but wonder whether you are a willing proponent of this detestable system or just an unwitting pawn being manipulated by those who procured your fortune, but in either case I cannot and will not support your attempts to gain control of this country. Others may be willing to sell you their freedoms in exchange for an empty promise of prosperity, but you will not be receiving my vote this November, for like the patriots of old, my cry is “give me liberty or give me death!” and you, sir, are certainly no proponent of the first.
Your fellow citizen,
Bill Fortenberry
Dear Sir,
I am writing this brief letter to inform you that you will not be receiving my vote on November fourth of this year. I have duly considered your position on many different issues, and I must admit that I find your plans somewhat frightening. I fear that were you to gain the office of the president at this time, it would spell the end of freedom for our nation. I wish that I had time to explain to you all the various and multitudinous implications of your proposed philosophies, but I do not. I will satisfy myself instead with the abasement of that policy which poses the greatest threat to our nation, namely, your desire to turn our country toward socialism.
You have stated that “the free market has failed us.” You have claimed that it is the government’s responsibility to step in and set up a new economy. You have explained that “the burdens and benefits of this new economy have to be spread evenly across the economy” and that you want to “spread the wealth around.” Such comments are nothing less than pure, unadulterated socialism. They could readily have proceeded from the mouth of Karl Marx himself, and indeed, they are synonymous with his philosophy of, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
You have justified your socialistic position through an unjust condemnation of what has become known as the ownership society. You claim that it “ignores our history” and that “in our past there has been another term for it �" Social Darwinism �" every man or woman for him or herself.” You have here taken two opposites and claimed that they are equal; but in actuality, the ownership society was once known as free enterprise, and it is based on that great protestant work ethic which made America the nation that she is today: “If a man will not work then neither should he eat.” It was this system of private property and individual responsibility that saved our ancestors from starvation and ruin, and those who accept this philosophy have demonstrated that they have indeed learned from our nation’s history. Social Darwinism, on the other hand, has always been against the free market system, and every implementation of Darwinism on a national scale (Germany, Russia, China, etc.) has followed the path of socialism to produce a communistic society. The two systems are total opposites, and interestingly enough, the one which you condemn is, in reality, the very one which you propose. Such gross mischaracterizations are a classic ploy of socialistic regimes. Vladimir Lenin admitted as much when he said that, “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience.” This sounds remarkably similar to your own admission that “when you're running for president, you're going to do some sinning.”
You will undoubtedly seek to further justify your position by arguing that the current economy is failing and that change is necessary because “someone working full-time today in a minimum wage job does not earn enough to raise out of poverty.” I can personally testify to the invalidity of such an argument. The so-called poverty line for a family of three is $18,000 per year. If both parents work full-time, making minimum wage after June of 2009, they will gross more than $30,000 per year. With a house payment of $1,000, car payments of $200, plus insurance payments of $200, and utility payments of $200 per month, they will still have $900 per month left over. This is a very livable scenario. For the past three years, I have earned less than $20,000 per year as the sole bread winner for my family, and I was able to bring my family of three out of this so-called poverty. During that time, we never missed a single meal, we were never late in paying a single bill, and we enjoyed a very full and happy life. You, yourself, are a perfect rebuttal of this argument. According to your own testimony, you have gone from being a poor kid living on welfare to one of the wealthiest men in America running for the most influential office in the world. What greater testament could there be to the success of America’s current economic system?
I find it very strange that one who claims to have studied constitutional law could ever bring himself to embrace an economic philosophy which so blatantly contradicts the supreme law of this great land. Do you know nothing of the history of your philosophies? Socialism has already been tried in America. It was attempted in Jamestown in 1607 and failed miserably. Alexis de Tocqueville condemned your theories in the 1800’s stating that “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Less than 100 years later, Winston Churchill, a man well acquainted with the evils of socialism, would agree with him by claiming that “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” And even more recently Margaret Thatcher recognized that “to cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.” Throughout history, those fighting for freedom have always recognized socialism as their enemy, and the enemies of liberty have gladly welcomed socialism as an ally in that fight.
Such enemies include Vladimir Lenin who stated that “the goal of socialism is communism,” and Karl Marx who claimed that “the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.” Surely you must realize that your policies have placed you in the same camp as some of the worst government leaders in the history of the world, leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung. Surely you must realize that you are dancing to the tune of men like John Strachey who proposed that “It is impossible to establish Communism as the immediate successor to Capitalism. Accordingly, it is proposed to establish Socialism as something which we can put in the place of our present decaying Capitalism. Hence, Communists work for the establishment of Socialism as the necessary transition stage on the road to Communism.” You cannot possibly be ignorant of the similarity between your policies and those of ACLU founder, Roger Baldwin, who admitted: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.”
Is communism your goal also? I cannot help but wonder whether you are a willing proponent of this detestable system or just an unwitting pawn being manipulated by those who procured your fortune, but in either case I cannot and will not support your attempts to gain control of this country. Others may be willing to sell you their freedoms in exchange for an empty promise of prosperity, but you will not be receiving my vote this November, for like the patriots of old, my cry is “give me liberty or give me death!” and you, sir, are certainly no proponent of the first.
Your fellow citizen,
Bill Fortenberry
An Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama
Dear Sir:
In my previous letter, I informed you of my decision to reject your bid for my vote this November. In response to that letter, your campaign assured me that you would welcome an open dialogue regarding your policies. Please accept this letter as my part in this dialogue.
As I stated previously, I do not support your plans to turn our country toward socialism. I have spent several months analyzing your speeches and proposals, and I have found within your rhetoric a three part plan to convert our great nation into a socialist regime. I would like to leave out the rhetoric and present that plan openly and in simple terms for all to see. I wish to show that your policies will destroy our republic by instituting national healthcare, giving unprecedented political power and protection to the labor unions, and removing the right of the people to bear arms. These policies have been criticized before, but seldom have their dangers been analyzed and proven to the extent that I will now attempt.
Let me begin with the longest of my dialogues by discussing your healthcare plan. To support this plan, you have painted the American people a desperate picture. You have described for us a pitiful situation in which hardworking families are not able to obtain vital medical treatment. You have stated that “it is indisputable that if you are poor in this country it is hazardous to your health.” Well, my own supposed poverty has not proven the least bit hazardous to my health or to the health of my family. In fact, although my wife suffered a brain hemorrhage just after giving birth to our son at a time when our total annual income was $15,000, we were still able to get all of her medical expenses paid without missing a single payment for anything else. Furthermore, even though my current employer does not provide medical insurance, I have been able to find very good medical coverage for my family for less than $150 per month. This is far from consistent with your bold statement that “the market has proven incapable of creating large enough insurance pools to keep costs to individuals affordable.” Your painting is flawed. I have lived in the reality that you claim to paint, and it is far different from the picture you are presenting to voters.
Our multi-payer, capitalistic healthcare system is not failing as you have claimed. On the contrary, we have the best medical system in the world. No other nation can boast of so great a percentage of its population living in perfect health. No other country can lay claim to as many medical advances as our great nation can. No other country has a better doctor-patient ratio, or as many hospitals per city, and yet you have threatened to eradicate the key component of our current medical system which makes all of this possibleďż˝"our capitalistic insurance companies.
You have stated that you are tired of the insurance companies “dictating our healthcare markets.” Your policies place great emphasis on “making sure they are limited in the ability to extract profits.” You have threatened to force insurance companies to “issue every applicant a policy” that is “at least as generous as the new public plan” with “premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are.” Allow me to point out a few flaws in your claims.
First of all, under our current system, American citizens reap the benefits of a balance of powers between themselves, their doctors, and the insurance companies. You see, if an insurance company were to charge more for its services than its customers want to pay, then those customers are free to change to a different insurance provider. Thus the insurance companies already have an incentive to keep their prices low. They cannot charge more than their customers are willing to pay. Likewise, the doctors must keep their prices to a minimum, for if a doctor begins to charge too much, he runs the risk of the insurance companies dropping him from their list of supported doctors. If the insurance companies become too miserly in their payouts, they also run the risk of doctors removing them from their list of supported insurance companies. This delicate balance of powers allows the doctors to obtain the payment that they need with as little cost to the patient as possible. In fact, a survey performed by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that while healthcare spending in the US reached 2.3 trillion dollars in 2007, the average cost to the individual was only $275 per month. This is just an average of course, but at this very moment, Celtic health insurance is offering individual plans with $30 co-pays and $5,000 deductibles for just $58 per month.
Your plan would force insurance companies to offer packages that are “at least as generous as the new public plan.” By your own campaign’s admission, this would ensure that they “are limited in their ability to extract profits.” Since there are very few insurance companies which are willing to operate without any hope of profit, this measure would effectively eliminate the entire private insurance industry, causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs and committing the government to an annual medical expense of 2.3 trillion dollars. To cover that expense you would be forced to raise taxes in excess of $7,500 per person. This single fact, were it made known to the public, would be enough to change the tide of this election, but it’s just one of the many burdens that your healthcare plan would place upon the citizens of this country.
Under our current healthcare system, doctors and insurance companies are able to bargain with each other to ensure that both are able to make a profit while keeping consumer costs to a minimum. Should you succeed in establishing a government healthcare plan, all such bargaining would cease. One cannot bargain with the government; one can only comply or rebel. If the government decides that the doctors should only be paid so much, then that is all that the doctors will be paid. This will have one or, more likely, both of two possible consequences. First, since a national healthcare system would force doctors to accept a set income, most of our brightest and best students will seek to enter other careers which offer more lucrative futures thus severely handicapping our nation’s medical advancement. Secondly, this could very likely result in a tremendous increase in corruption within the medical field as doctors seek to obtain profits through submitting falsified invoices for government reimbursement. Thus your healthcare plan would produce a decrease in medical efficiency while at the same time providing ample incentive for an increase in corruption.
The aforementioned flaws are indeed disheartening, but by far the most frightening aspect of your healthcare plan is that it provides the government with a very powerful tool of coercion. By necessity, every healthcare system must have limitations. For instance, a national healthcare system would obviously not provide coverage for a wanted criminal desiring to have his face surgically altered. This necessity of limited coverage would give the government the power to deny medical coverage to anyone at any time. At first, this power would likely be wielded only in cases similar to the one just mentioned, but how long would it take for the government to begin denying coverage to domestic terrorists? And how difficult would it be to include in the definition of domestic terrorists those fundamentalist preachers that supposedly incite their congregations into taking actions contrary to the goals of the state? No doubt you would like to offer us several promises that your system would never degenerate to such a state, but even if we could accept your word, we cannot accept any promise that this system will not be thus abused by any future leader of our country. The only way to prevent such abuse is to not allow this system to be initiated in the first place.
The next phase of your plan involves your desire to give an unprecedented amount of power and protection to the labor unions. You have stated that “the leaders of service workers unions broke ranks and chose to endorse me…I owe those unions.” You then proceeded to admit that you “got into politics for those folks.” Your campaign website makes such bold statements as, “Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers.” These seemingly innocuous statements carry some rather ominous implications.
Our current industrial system is subject to a similar balance of powers as that which exists in the medical industry. The consumer, of course, wants a cheaper product so he purchases more goods from those companies with the best values. The employee desires to earn as much as possible and, consequently, decides to work for that company which provides the best wages and benefits. If an employer is to be successful in business, he must find a fair balance between the demands of his employees and the desires of his customers. This balance is his source of profit for if he satisfies the wishes of his employees, then they are much more likely to work to their fullest potential and increase production, thus lowering the cost of his merchandise and meeting the desires of his customers.
Your plan would upset that balance by placing unprecedented power in the hands of the labor unions. The assurance that they can strike without fear of retaliation will encourage a great increase in union membership, and history has proven that the unions thus enlarged and emboldened will most certainly exercise their new found privilege by launching a series of strikes to demand ever increasing wages and power. The employers will attempt to offset this expense by continually raising prices, and many will succumb to union pressure and relinquish control of their industries allowing the unions to establish social ownership. Eventually, a crisis will be reached. Consumers will not be able to afford the rising prices and will simply stop buying, businesses will go bankrupt, and the economy will fail. This process has been observed numerous times in socialist uprisings all around the world. Providing such absolute power and protection to the unions always precipitates an economic collapse.
Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that the longest any such system could hope to survive is 200 years, but I do not know of a single one which has celebrated even its first centennial. I am sure that you must remember the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. This grand socialist experiment began with the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 which gave control of the nation’s businesses to the worker’s councils or unions known as the soviets. Within a single generation of this change, the country suffered a complete economic collapse. Czechoslovakia, which had a thriving industrial economy prior to its socialist takeover, followed the same path, as did Cuba, Hungary, and numerous others. There is no reason to assume that the socialization of American industries would not follow their example, and indeed our forefathers found that to be the case when they first attempted socialism on these shores.
Jamestown and Plymouth both experimented with socialism in the early 1600s through the use of the common store system. Both settlements suffered great economic failures and much loss of life as a result of this system, and both of them rejected socialism in favor of a system based on private property. In the words of William Bradford, the governor of Plymouth, “This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted, than otherwise would have been.” The success of capitalism in America’s earliest settlements established it firmly as a fundamental component of the American economic system. Why should we abandon a system which has proven successful over the course of nearly 400 years for one that has often failed within 100 years of each implementation? To do so would be unwise at best and economic suicide at worst.
Let me now move on to the third part of your socialist plan, namely, the disarmament of the American citizenry. The second amendment to our Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Many people seem to be under the misconception that this amendment was included in our Bill of Rights to ensure that the citizens would be able to hunt for food and protect themselves from savages. With these two uses of firearms being no longer necessary in most of the United States, many noble, well-intentioned people have begun to argue that the right to bear arms is no longer necessary either. They are greatly mistaken in this conclusion, for the purpose of the second amendment is just as prevalent today as it was in 1791. The right to keep and bear arms was not granted to allow men to hunt; it was granted to ensure their continued freedom from an oppressive government. To better explain its grammar, the second amendment could also be read, “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In reference to the second amendment, you have stated that “just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.” You have further stated that you “think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.” You said that you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of hand guns, and to ban assault weapons. Should you accomplish these goals, you will be in direct violation of our Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The second amendment is not open to interpretation; it leaves no room for political maneuvering. It simply states, in no uncertain terms, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Now it does not just say that the right to keep arms is protected but that the right to bear arms is also protected, and it does not demand that this right simply be preserved but that this right should not even be limited, nor is this law limited to the federal government alone as is the case with the first amendment, but it is stated as a universal law for the entire nation.
Without this right to keep and bear arms, the citizens of this country would have no recourse of action should our government overstep its bounds. They would have no means of forcing a corrupt bureaucracy to step down. It is this right which protects our nation from the threat of a military coup, and it is this right which best guarantees the continuance of all other rights granted to the citizens of this nation. Your insistence on infringing upon this fundamental right should be a matter of great concern to every American citizen.
I have here presented three of your policies which pose a dire threat to the freedoms which we enjoy as Americans. I could have mentioned many others as well, such as your plans for the complete socialization of education or your desire to force compliance with the Kyoto Accord, but I will limit myself to just these three for now. Your campaign has assured me that you would welcome an open dialogue, and it is my hope that you will honor their assurances and provide an answer to the arguments that I have here noted. I have taken the liberty to send copies of this letter to every major news network, the top twenty newspapers in the country, the national committees of both parties, numerous senators and representatives, and, of course, to Senator McCain. May your reply be equally as public.
Your fellow citizen,
Bill Fortenberry
Dear Sir:
In my previous letter, I informed you of my decision to reject your bid for my vote this November. In response to that letter, your campaign assured me that you would welcome an open dialogue regarding your policies. Please accept this letter as my part in this dialogue.
As I stated previously, I do not support your plans to turn our country toward socialism. I have spent several months analyzing your speeches and proposals, and I have found within your rhetoric a three part plan to convert our great nation into a socialist regime. I would like to leave out the rhetoric and present that plan openly and in simple terms for all to see. I wish to show that your policies will destroy our republic by instituting national healthcare, giving unprecedented political power and protection to the labor unions, and removing the right of the people to bear arms. These policies have been criticized before, but seldom have their dangers been analyzed and proven to the extent that I will now attempt.
Let me begin with the longest of my dialogues by discussing your healthcare plan. To support this plan, you have painted the American people a desperate picture. You have described for us a pitiful situation in which hardworking families are not able to obtain vital medical treatment. You have stated that “it is indisputable that if you are poor in this country it is hazardous to your health.” Well, my own supposed poverty has not proven the least bit hazardous to my health or to the health of my family. In fact, although my wife suffered a brain hemorrhage just after giving birth to our son at a time when our total annual income was $15,000, we were still able to get all of her medical expenses paid without missing a single payment for anything else. Furthermore, even though my current employer does not provide medical insurance, I have been able to find very good medical coverage for my family for less than $150 per month. This is far from consistent with your bold statement that “the market has proven incapable of creating large enough insurance pools to keep costs to individuals affordable.” Your painting is flawed. I have lived in the reality that you claim to paint, and it is far different from the picture you are presenting to voters.
Our multi-payer, capitalistic healthcare system is not failing as you have claimed. On the contrary, we have the best medical system in the world. No other nation can boast of so great a percentage of its population living in perfect health. No other country can lay claim to as many medical advances as our great nation can. No other country has a better doctor-patient ratio, or as many hospitals per city, and yet you have threatened to eradicate the key component of our current medical system which makes all of this possibleďż˝"our capitalistic insurance companies.
You have stated that you are tired of the insurance companies “dictating our healthcare markets.” Your policies place great emphasis on “making sure they are limited in the ability to extract profits.” You have threatened to force insurance companies to “issue every applicant a policy” that is “at least as generous as the new public plan” with “premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are.” Allow me to point out a few flaws in your claims.
First of all, under our current system, American citizens reap the benefits of a balance of powers between themselves, their doctors, and the insurance companies. You see, if an insurance company were to charge more for its services than its customers want to pay, then those customers are free to change to a different insurance provider. Thus the insurance companies already have an incentive to keep their prices low. They cannot charge more than their customers are willing to pay. Likewise, the doctors must keep their prices to a minimum, for if a doctor begins to charge too much, he runs the risk of the insurance companies dropping him from their list of supported doctors. If the insurance companies become too miserly in their payouts, they also run the risk of doctors removing them from their list of supported insurance companies. This delicate balance of powers allows the doctors to obtain the payment that they need with as little cost to the patient as possible. In fact, a survey performed by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that while healthcare spending in the US reached 2.3 trillion dollars in 2007, the average cost to the individual was only $275 per month. This is just an average of course, but at this very moment, Celtic health insurance is offering individual plans with $30 co-pays and $5,000 deductibles for just $58 per month.
Your plan would force insurance companies to offer packages that are “at least as generous as the new public plan.” By your own campaign’s admission, this would ensure that they “are limited in their ability to extract profits.” Since there are very few insurance companies which are willing to operate without any hope of profit, this measure would effectively eliminate the entire private insurance industry, causing hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs and committing the government to an annual medical expense of 2.3 trillion dollars. To cover that expense you would be forced to raise taxes in excess of $7,500 per person. This single fact, were it made known to the public, would be enough to change the tide of this election, but it’s just one of the many burdens that your healthcare plan would place upon the citizens of this country.
Under our current healthcare system, doctors and insurance companies are able to bargain with each other to ensure that both are able to make a profit while keeping consumer costs to a minimum. Should you succeed in establishing a government healthcare plan, all such bargaining would cease. One cannot bargain with the government; one can only comply or rebel. If the government decides that the doctors should only be paid so much, then that is all that the doctors will be paid. This will have one or, more likely, both of two possible consequences. First, since a national healthcare system would force doctors to accept a set income, most of our brightest and best students will seek to enter other careers which offer more lucrative futures thus severely handicapping our nation’s medical advancement. Secondly, this could very likely result in a tremendous increase in corruption within the medical field as doctors seek to obtain profits through submitting falsified invoices for government reimbursement. Thus your healthcare plan would produce a decrease in medical efficiency while at the same time providing ample incentive for an increase in corruption.
The aforementioned flaws are indeed disheartening, but by far the most frightening aspect of your healthcare plan is that it provides the government with a very powerful tool of coercion. By necessity, every healthcare system must have limitations. For instance, a national healthcare system would obviously not provide coverage for a wanted criminal desiring to have his face surgically altered. This necessity of limited coverage would give the government the power to deny medical coverage to anyone at any time. At first, this power would likely be wielded only in cases similar to the one just mentioned, but how long would it take for the government to begin denying coverage to domestic terrorists? And how difficult would it be to include in the definition of domestic terrorists those fundamentalist preachers that supposedly incite their congregations into taking actions contrary to the goals of the state? No doubt you would like to offer us several promises that your system would never degenerate to such a state, but even if we could accept your word, we cannot accept any promise that this system will not be thus abused by any future leader of our country. The only way to prevent such abuse is to not allow this system to be initiated in the first place.
The next phase of your plan involves your desire to give an unprecedented amount of power and protection to the labor unions. You have stated that “the leaders of service workers unions broke ranks and chose to endorse me…I owe those unions.” You then proceeded to admit that you “got into politics for those folks.” Your campaign website makes such bold statements as, “Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers.” These seemingly innocuous statements carry some rather ominous implications.
Our current industrial system is subject to a similar balance of powers as that which exists in the medical industry. The consumer, of course, wants a cheaper product so he purchases more goods from those companies with the best values. The employee desires to earn as much as possible and, consequently, decides to work for that company which provides the best wages and benefits. If an employer is to be successful in business, he must find a fair balance between the demands of his employees and the desires of his customers. This balance is his source of profit for if he satisfies the wishes of his employees, then they are much more likely to work to their fullest potential and increase production, thus lowering the cost of his merchandise and meeting the desires of his customers.
Your plan would upset that balance by placing unprecedented power in the hands of the labor unions. The assurance that they can strike without fear of retaliation will encourage a great increase in union membership, and history has proven that the unions thus enlarged and emboldened will most certainly exercise their new found privilege by launching a series of strikes to demand ever increasing wages and power. The employers will attempt to offset this expense by continually raising prices, and many will succumb to union pressure and relinquish control of their industries allowing the unions to establish social ownership. Eventually, a crisis will be reached. Consumers will not be able to afford the rising prices and will simply stop buying, businesses will go bankrupt, and the economy will fail. This process has been observed numerous times in socialist uprisings all around the world. Providing such absolute power and protection to the unions always precipitates an economic collapse.
Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that the longest any such system could hope to survive is 200 years, but I do not know of a single one which has celebrated even its first centennial. I am sure that you must remember the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. This grand socialist experiment began with the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 which gave control of the nation’s businesses to the worker’s councils or unions known as the soviets. Within a single generation of this change, the country suffered a complete economic collapse. Czechoslovakia, which had a thriving industrial economy prior to its socialist takeover, followed the same path, as did Cuba, Hungary, and numerous others. There is no reason to assume that the socialization of American industries would not follow their example, and indeed our forefathers found that to be the case when they first attempted socialism on these shores.
Jamestown and Plymouth both experimented with socialism in the early 1600s through the use of the common store system. Both settlements suffered great economic failures and much loss of life as a result of this system, and both of them rejected socialism in favor of a system based on private property. In the words of William Bradford, the governor of Plymouth, “This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted, than otherwise would have been.” The success of capitalism in America’s earliest settlements established it firmly as a fundamental component of the American economic system. Why should we abandon a system which has proven successful over the course of nearly 400 years for one that has often failed within 100 years of each implementation? To do so would be unwise at best and economic suicide at worst.
Let me now move on to the third part of your socialist plan, namely, the disarmament of the American citizenry. The second amendment to our Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Many people seem to be under the misconception that this amendment was included in our Bill of Rights to ensure that the citizens would be able to hunt for food and protect themselves from savages. With these two uses of firearms being no longer necessary in most of the United States, many noble, well-intentioned people have begun to argue that the right to bear arms is no longer necessary either. They are greatly mistaken in this conclusion, for the purpose of the second amendment is just as prevalent today as it was in 1791. The right to keep and bear arms was not granted to allow men to hunt; it was granted to ensure their continued freedom from an oppressive government. To better explain its grammar, the second amendment could also be read, “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In reference to the second amendment, you have stated that “just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.” You have further stated that you “think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.” You said that you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of hand guns, and to ban assault weapons. Should you accomplish these goals, you will be in direct violation of our Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The second amendment is not open to interpretation; it leaves no room for political maneuvering. It simply states, in no uncertain terms, that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Now it does not just say that the right to keep arms is protected but that the right to bear arms is also protected, and it does not demand that this right simply be preserved but that this right should not even be limited, nor is this law limited to the federal government alone as is the case with the first amendment, but it is stated as a universal law for the entire nation.
Without this right to keep and bear arms, the citizens of this country would have no recourse of action should our government overstep its bounds. They would have no means of forcing a corrupt bureaucracy to step down. It is this right which protects our nation from the threat of a military coup, and it is this right which best guarantees the continuance of all other rights granted to the citizens of this nation. Your insistence on infringing upon this fundamental right should be a matter of great concern to every American citizen.
I have here presented three of your policies which pose a dire threat to the freedoms which we enjoy as Americans. I could have mentioned many others as well, such as your plans for the complete socialization of education or your desire to force compliance with the Kyoto Accord, but I will limit myself to just these three for now. Your campaign has assured me that you would welcome an open dialogue, and it is my hope that you will honor their assurances and provide an answer to the arguments that I have here noted. I have taken the liberty to send copies of this letter to every major news network, the top twenty newspapers in the country, the national committees of both parties, numerous senators and representatives, and, of course, to Senator McCain. May your reply be equally as public.
Your fellow citizen,
Bill Fortenberry
Posts By Month
Posts
