We must first find out what caused the problem before we can fix it. There is plenty of blame to go around. Many people are blaming the unions for the failure. I agree that part of the problem belongs to the unions. When our unions were first organized they worked hard to assure workers received fair wages for doing a decent job, better working conditions, shorter days, medical and retirement benefits, etc. Workers throughout America benefited from the unions’ efforts.

Please forgive me while I step on my soapbox for awhile to complain about what I think is the biggest problem with the unions today. Somewhere along the way unions quit fighting for the diligent workers and started fighting harder for the deadbeats that don’t actually earn what they receive. You know those that don’t carry their share of the work load – those with high absenteeism and tardiness, those that show up under the influence of drugs or alcohol, those that make excuses for why they can’t do a harder job, those constantly out on medical leave, etc. Yet, the union does their best to keep those deadbeats from getting fired. When asked “Why?” – Union representatives answered, “If we can protect their job; we’ll have no problem protecting yours.” Forcing employers to keep slackers on the payroll hurts everybody and possibly could be part of what’s risking everyone else’s jobs now.

I watched the news yesterday and heard that the CEOs flew into Washington DC on private jets. If taxpayers are forced to bailout those managing the big 3 – there had better be lots of rules. From what I’ve heard; management positions are not union members – if that is true; then the unions aren’t totally to blame.

Get back to the basics. These questions should be answered:
• Is the ratio of management costs to labor costs close to the same as they were when the big 3 first started being profitable? If not, which cost more now than it did then and what caused the change?
• How much of the problem is really linked to the unions abandoning the principles they were founded on?
• How much of the problem is high union wages?
• How much of the problem is linked to the corporate greed giving high salaries and fringe benefits to the white collar workers?
• How much of the problem is improper designing of vehicles that will sell?
• Were promised retirement programs properly funded?
• How much of the problem is linked to the rising cost of health care?
• How much of the problem is linked to the disadvantage of high corporate taxes that get passed on to consumers? (Those embedded taxes that hurt America’s competitiveness that Gov. Huckabee spoke about throughout his campaign – especially when promoting the FairTax)
• How much of the problem is linked to the current economic meltdown?
• Was there anything in the blueprint of the original Chrysler bailout that could help make things work now?

If the automakers fail; it will affect part suppliers and many others around the communities. Can we help avoid ending up with manufacturing “ghost towns” across the country? Please join the brainstorming with answers to my questions or asking more of your own.

The Democrats are working hard for an Obama presidency with a filibuster-proof Congress. According to an article I read recently; the last time there was a president serving with a filibuster-proof Congressional majority was in 1977. [The Carter Administration]

Although I don’t usually use Wikipedia for reference; since this quote goes along with what I remember – I will use it.

During Carter’s administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s.

In my opinion the scariest similarities between Carter and Obama is this quote (also from the Wikipedia article)

The media discovered and promoted Carter. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

“What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months.”

The question is – Have we “learn[ed] from history” or “are [we] doomed to repeat it”?

Edit: I’m adding 2 additions to this post. Note: The 2nd addition is at the end.

First addition:
I’m editing this post because I forgot to mention something which is very relevant to the theme of this article. This is the introduction of the original news article I mentioned that caused me to write this in the first place:

While Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has produced a television ad criticizing Sen. John McCain’s position on equal pay for women and pointing out that women in America are paid only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, Obama pays his own female Senate staffers, on average, only 78 percent of what he pays male staffers.

Original post plus 2nd addition at the end:
I’ve never been a member of NOW [National Organization for Women] even though I agree with SOME of their goals. I believe that chores should be shared around the home between all family members. That is ONE of the reasons I was impressed with Sen. McCain’s VP choice. The Palin family is an example of “What’s going to work – Team Work” in action; a true inspiration for families across America. But, many outspoken feminists across America don’t like Gov. Palin. Are they afraid she might actually let the world know it’s OK to be a pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-gun rights, and religious conservative female? Were they shocked such creatures exist? Maybe they’ve never heard of Feminists for Life, Christian Womanhood, Joyful Woman, etc.?

I believe in equal pay for equal work; regardless of race or gender. I just read an article that really leaves me very confused since NOW recently endorsed Obama. Have you heard that “Obama Pays Women Only 78 Percent of What He Pays Men”?

… Obama pays his own female Senate staffers, on average, only 78 percent of what he pays male staffers.

Women on McCain’s staff, meanwhile, earn 24 percent more on average than women on Obama’s Senate staff. McCain also pays his female Senate staff members a higher average salary than his male Senate staff members…

In percentage terms, McCain paid female staffers 101 percent of what he paid men. Women outnumbered men on McCain’s staff, 26 to 16.

NOW President Kim Gandy did not view the pay disparity as a problem…

Thirteen of the 20 highest paid members of McCain’s Senate staff were women during the sixth-month reporting period. Eight of the 20 highest paid members of Obama’s Senate staff were women.

Read more here.

NOW had a choice between endorsing a candidate whose ACTIONS support fairness between genders or a candidate that SAYS they support fairness between genders; even though his actions PROVE otherwise. They chose the empty suit candidate full of empty words.

As an Illinois State Senator, Obama worked hard to raise tax payer dollars to support his favorite charities. As an US Senator, he was working hard to encourage Congress to fight global poverty. Read more here. That was probably part of the reason Oprah endorsed him. Fighting poverty is dear to Oprah’s heart and she has done a good job using her own money supporting that cause.

I’m a strong supporter of our 1st Amendment right and believe God gave each of us the choice as to which religion (if any at all) we want to practice. I personally believe it is Scriptural to give to charity and examine my own records to make sure I give a minimum of 10% [Tithe] of our family income to charity like the Bible teaches. Malachi 3:8 (KJV) “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.” I also believe it is up to the individual as to whether or not they obey God and give to charity. But, I’d like to point out some interesting information.

Until recently [2005 – around the time he began his presidential run] the Obama’s charitable contributions were at a lower percentage of their total income than the national average of 2% of gross income. Read more here. In 2007 the Biden’s gross income was $319,853 with less than ½ % [$995] going to charity. Read more here.

How do the presidential candidates compare in charitable contributions for 2007? The Obama’s 2007 income level was larger than that of most Americans, 4.2 million dollars gross income with approximately 6% [about 3 times the national average of 2%] going to charity. Although smaller than the Obama’s, the McCain’s 2007 income is also larger than most Americans, $794,000 with approximately 27% [almost 10 ¾ times larger than the national average] going to charity. Read more here.

Regardless of what happens with our taxes, I intend to continue fulfilling my promise to give at least 10% of our family income to charity. I have a problem with government deciding WHICH charities I should support with our tax dollars. Some of their choices are fine. Some of them go against everything I believe. I really have a problem with the Democrat ticket wanting to put OUR money where THEIR mouth is. Maybe they never learned that charity begins at home.

Obama says Congress should do something about the way mortgage companies do business. He blames the Bush administration and McCain for our “recent” economic crisis. Bush tried to do something about it in 2003. Read more here. McCain actually tried again by co-sponsoring a bill in 2005 to address the problem. But, once again the bill was squashed by the Democrats in bed with Freddie and Fannie. “…Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions…” Read more here.

Obama says he supports immediate troop withdrawal; but allegedly “OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL” Read it here.

Obama says he wants to reform government. “Obama sidesteps reform in Illinois.” Read it here.

Something to think about:
Hypocrite means “a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.” What does that say for Obama’s and NOW’s words vs. their actions? I wonder – What kind of picture would be next to the definition of the word hypocrite in a dictionary?

Edit: 2nd addition:

Something more to think about:
Didn’t Obama claim running his campaign is proof of him having executive experience? Upon examining that type of “resume” – which candidate could we really expect to make changes for equality among the sexes? Sen. McCain pays males and females of his staff virtually equally; although women are paid about 1% more than men among the top positions and chose a woman to be his VP. Obama pays women 22% lower than men and chose a man as his VP. Does Obama’s “resume” mean we should expect “more of the same” suppression of equality between sexes if he is elected the chief executive of America? Once again Obama talks “change” while McCain performs change.

I am proud of my Baptist heritage. Many of my Baptists spiritual ancestors risked their lives and property to give Americans the freedom to choose which religion if any at all to practice. The Baptists worked the hardest to make sure we weren’t forced to pay taxes to support government approved churches. Part of the Baptist’s “fundamental doctrine” is “Absolute Religious Liberty for All.”

Joshua shared our right to choose in Joshua 24:15 when he said, “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

I would like to share just some of how my Baptists spiritual ancestors helped Americans have our freedom of religion. This is “LECTURE FIVE” and “SOME AFTER WORDS” copied and pasted from “The Trail of Blood” by J.M. Carroll.

LECTURE FIVE–RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES

1. Through the Spanish and others of the Latin races, the Catholics as religionists, came to be the first representatives of the Christian religion in South and Central America. But in North America, except Mexico, they have never strongly predominated. In the territory of what is now the United States except in those sections which were once parts of Mexico they have never been strong enough, even during the Colonial period to have their religious views established by law.

2. Beginning with the Colonial period, in the early part of the seventeenth century, the first settlements were established in Virginia, and a little later in that territory now known as the New England States. Religious, or more properly speaking–irreligious persecutions, in England, and on the continent, were, at least, among the prime causes which led to the first settlement of the first United States Colonies. In some of the groups of immigrants which first came, not including the Jamestown group (1607) and those known as the “Pilgrims” (1620), were two groups, one, at least, called “Puritans”–these were “Congregationalists.” Governor Endicott was in control of their colony. The other group were Presbyterians. Among these two groups, however, were a number of Christians with other views than theirs, also seeking relief from persecution.

“THE TRAIL OF BLOOD IN AMERICA”

3. These refugeeing Congregationalists and Presbyterians established different Colonies and immediately within their respective territories established by law their own peculiar religious views. In other words, “Congregationalism” and “Presbyterianism” were made the legal religious views of their colonies. This to the absolute exclusion of all other religious views. Themselves fleeing the mother country, with the bloody marks of persecution still upon them and seeking a home of freedom and liberty for themselves, immediately upon being established in their own colonies, in the new land and having the authority, they deny religious liberty to others, and practice upon them the same cruel methods of persecution. Especially did they, so treat the Baptists.

4. The Southern colonies in Virginia, North and South Carolina were settled mainly by the adherents of the Church of England. The peculiar views of the Church were made the established religion of these colonies. Thus in the new land of America, where many other Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians have come seeking the privilege of worshipping God according to the dictates of their own consciences, there were soon set up three established churches. No religious liberty for any except for those who held governmental authority. The Children of Rome are following in the bloody footsteps of their mother. Their own reformation is yet far from complete.

5. With the immigrants to America came many scattering Baptists (by some still called “Ana-Baptists”). There were probably some in every American-bound vessel. They came, however, in comparatively small groups, never in large colonies. They would not have been permitted to come in that way. But they kept coming. Before the colonies are thoroughly established the Baptists are numerous and almost everywhere. But they soon began to feel the heavy hands of the three State churches. For the terrible offenses of “preaching the Gospel” and “refusing to have their children baptized,” “opposing infant baptism,” and other like conscientious acts on their part, they were arrested, imprisoned, fined, whipped, banished, and their property confiscated, etc. All that here in America. From many sources, I give but a few illustrations.

6. Before the Massachusetts Bay Colony is twenty years old, with the Congregational as the State Church, they passed laws against the Baptists and others. The following is a sample of the laws:

“It is ordered and agreed, that if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the ministration of the ordinance . . . after due time and means of conviction–every such person or persons shall be sentenced to banishment.” This law was enacted especially against the Baptists.

7. By the Authorities in this colony, Roger Williams and others were banished. Banishment in America in those days was something desperately serious. It meant to go and live among the Indians. In this case Williams was received kindly and for quite a while lived among the Indians, and in after days proved a great blessing to the colony which had banished him. He saved the colony from destruction by this same tribe of Indians, by his earnest entreaties in their behalf. In this way he returned good for evil.

8. Roger Williams, later, together with others, some of whom, at least, had also been banished from that and other of the colonies among whom was John Clarke, a Baptist preacher, decided to organize a colony of their own. As yet they had no legal authority from England to do such a thing, but they thought this step wiser under existing conditions than to attempt to live in existing colonies with the awful religious restrictions then upon them. So finding a small section of land as yet unclaimed by any existing colony they proceeded to establish themselves on that section of land now known as Rhode Island. That was in the year 1638, ten years later than the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but it was about 25 years later (1663) before they were able to secure a legal charter.

9. In the year 1651 (?) Roger Williams and John Clarke were sent by. the colony to England to secure, if possible legal permission to establish their colony. When they reached England, Oliver Cromwell was in charge of the government, but for some reason he failed to grant their request. Roger Williams returned home to America. John Clarke remained in England to continue to press his plea. Year after year went by. Clarke continued to remain. Finally Cromwell lost his position and Charles II sat upon the throne of England. While Charles is regarded in history as one of the bitterest of persecutors of Christians, he finally, in 1663, granted that charter. So Clarke, after 12 long years of waiting returned home with that charter. So in 1663, the Rhode Island colony became a real legal institution, and the Baptists could write their own constitution.

10. That Constitution was written. It attracted the attention of the whole wide world. In that Constitution was the world’s first declaration of “Religious Liberty.”

The battle for absolute religious liberty even in America alone is a great history within itself. For a long time the Baptists seem to have fought that battle entirely alone, but they did not fight it for themselves alone, but for all peoples of every religious faith. Rhode Island, the first Baptist colony, established by a small group of Baptists after 12 years of earnest pleading for permission was the first spot on earth where religious liberty was made the law of the land. The settlement was made in 1638; the colony legally established in 1663.

11. In this colony two Baptist churches were organized even prior to the legal establishment of the colony. As to the exact date of the organization of at least one of these two churches, even the Baptists, according to history, are at disagreement. All seem to be agreed as to the date of the organization of the one at Providence, by Roger Williams, in 1639. As to the date of the one organized at Newport by John Clarke, all the later testimony seems to give the date at 1638. All the earlier seems to give it later, some years later. The one organized by Roger Williams at Providence seems to have lived but a few months. The other by John Clarke at Newport, is still living. My own opinion as to the date of organization of Newport church, based on all available data, is that 1638 is the correct date. Personally, I am sure this date is correct.

12. As to the persecutions in some of the American colonies, we give a few samples. It is recorded that on one occasion one of John Clarke’s members was sick. The family lived just across the Massachusetts Bay Colony line and just inside that colony. John Clarke, himself, and a visiting preacher by the name of Crandall and a layman by the name of Obediah Holmes–all three went to visit that sick family. While they were holding some kind of a prayer service with that sick family, some officer or officers of the colony came upon them and arrested them and later carried them before the court for trial. It is also stated, that in order to get a more definite charge against them, they were carried into a religious meeting of their church (Congregationalist), their hands being tied (so the record states). The charge against them was “for not taking off their hats in a religious service.” They were all tried and convicted. Gov. Endicott was present. In a rage he said to Clarke, while the trial was going on, “You have denied infants baptism” (this was not the charge against them). “You deserve death. I will not have such trash brought into my jurisdiction.” The penalty for all was a fine, or be well-whipped. Crandall’s fine (a visitor) was five pounds ($25.00), Clarke’s fine (the pastor) was twenty pounds ($100.00). Holmes’ fine (the records say he had been a Congregationalist and had joined the Baptists) so his fine was thirty pounds ($150.00). Clark’s and Crandall’s fines were paid by friends. Holmes refused to allow his fine paid, saying he had done no wrong, so was well whipped. The record states that he was “stripped to the waist” and then whipped (with some kind of a special whip) until the blood ran down his body and then his legs until his shoes overflowed. The record goes on to state that his body was so badly gashed and cut that for two weeks he could not lie down, so his body could touch the bed. His sleeping had to be done on his hands or elbows and knees. Of this whipping and other things connected with it I read all records, even Holmes’ statement. A thing could hardly have been more brutal. And here in America!

13. Painter, another man, “refused to have his child baptized,” and gave as his opinion “that infant baptism was an anti-Christian ordinance.” For these offenses he was tied up and whipped. Governor Winthrop tells us that Painter was whipped “for reproaching the Lord’s ordinance.”

14. In the colony where Presbyterianism was the established religion, dissenters (Baptist and others) seemed to fare no better than in the Massachusetts Bay Colony where Congregationalism was the established religion.

In this colony was a settlement of Baptists. In the whole settlement were only five other families. The Baptists recognized the laws they were under and were, according to the records, obedient to them. This incident occurred:

It was decided by authorities of the colony to build a Presbyterian meeting house in that Baptist settlement. The only way to do it seemed by taxation. The Baptists recognized the authority of the Presbyterians to levy this new and extra tax, but they made this plea against the tax at this time–”We have just started our settlement. Our little cabins have just been built, and little gardens and patches just been opened. Our fields not cleared. We have just been taxed to the limit to build a fort for protection against the Indians. We cannot possibly pay another tax now.” This is only the substance of their plea. The tax was levied. It could not possibly be paid at that time. An auction was called. Sales were made. Their cabins and gardens and patches, and even their graveyards, were sold–not their unopened fields. Property valued at 363 pounds and 5 shillings sold for 35 pounds and 10 shillings. Some of it, at least, was said to have been bought by the preacher who was to preach there. The settlement was said to have been left ruined.

A large book could be filled with oppressive laws. Terrifically burdensome acts of taxation, hard dealing of many sorts, directed mainly against the Baptists. But these lectures cannot enter into these details.

15. In the southern colonies, throughout the Carolinas and especially Virginia, where the Church of England held sway, persecution of Baptists was serious and continuous. Many times their preachers were fined and imprisoned. From the beginning of the colonial period to the opening of the Revolutionary War, more than 100 years, these persecutions of Baptists were persisted in.

16. We give some examples of the hardships of the Baptists in Virginia, and yet strange as it may now seem Virginia was the next place on earth after Rhode Island to adopt religious liberty. But that was more than a century away. But the hardships–as many as 30 preachers at different times, were put in jail with the only charge against them–”for preaching the Gospel of the Son of God.” James Ireland is a case in point. He was imprisoned. After imprisonment, his enemies tried to blow him up with gunpowder. That having failed, they next tried to smother him to death by burning sulphur under his windows at the jail. Failing also in this, they tried to arrange with a doctor to poison him. All this failed. He continued to preach to his people from the windows. A wall was then built around his jail so the people could not see in nor he see out, but even that difficulty was overcome. The people gathered, a handkerchief was tied to a long stick, and that stuck up above the walls so Ireland could see when they were ready. The preaching continued.

17. Three Baptist preachers (Lewis and Joseph Craig and Aaron Bledsoe) were later arrested on the same charge. One of them, at least, was a blood relative of R. E. B. Baylor, and possibly of one or more other Texas Baptist preachers. These preachers were arraigned for trial. Patrick Henry, hearing of it and though living many miles away and though a Church of England man himself, rode those miles horseback to the trial and volunteered his services in their defense. Great was his defense. I cannot enter into a description of it here. It swept the court. The preachers were freed.

18. Elsewhere than Rhode Island, religious liberty came slowly and by degrees. For example: In Virginia a law was passed permitting one, but only one, Baptist preacher to a county. He was permitted to preach but once in two months. Later this law was modified, permitting him to preach once in each month. But even then, in only one definite place in the county, and only one sermon on that day, and never to preach at night. Laws were passed not only in Virginia but in colonies elsewhere positively forbidding any Mission work. This was why Judson was the first foreign missionary–law forbade. It took a long time and many hard battles, in the Virginia House of Burgesses, to greatly modify these laws.

19. Evidently, one of the greatest obstructions to religious liberty in America, and probably all over the world as to that, was the conviction which had grown into the people throughout the preceding centuries that religion could not possibly live without governmental support. That no denomination could prosper solely on voluntary offerings by its adherents. And this was the hard argument to meet when the battle was raging for the disestablishment of the Church of England in Virginia, and also later in Congress when the question of religious liberty was being discussed there. For a long time the Baptists fought the battle almost alone,

20. Rhode Island began her colony in 1638, but it was not legally chartered until 1663. There was the first spot where Religious Liberty was granted. The second place was Virginia in 1786. Congress declared the first amendment to the Constitution to be in force December 15, 1791, which granted religious liberty to all citizens, Baptists are credited with being the leaders in bringing this blessing to the nation.

21. We venture to give one early Congressional incident. The question of whether the United States should have an established church or several established churches, or religious liberty, was being discussed. Several different bills had been offered, one recommending the Church of England as the established church; and another the Congregationalist Church, and yet another the Presbyterian. The Baptists, many of them, though probably none of them members of Congress, were earnestly contending for absolute religious liberty. James Madison (afterwards President) seemingly was their main supporter. Patrick Henry arose and offered a substitute bill for them all, “That four churches (or denominations) instead of one be established”–the Church of England, or Episcopal, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, and the Baptist. Finally when each of the others saw that IT could not be made the sole established church, they each agreed to accept Henry’s compromise. (This compromise bill stated that each person taxed would have the right to say to which denomination of these four his money should go.) The Baptists continued to fight against it all; that any combination of Church and State was against their fundamental principles, that they could not accept it even if voted. Henry pleaded with them, said he was trying to help them, that they could not live without it, but they still protested. The vote was taken–it carried nearly unanimously. But the measure had to be voted on three times. The Baptists, led by Madison and possibly others continued to fight. The second vote came. It also carried almost unanimously, swept by Henry’s masterful eloquence. But the third vote had yet to be taken. Now God seemingly intervened. Henry was made Governor of Virginia and left Congress. When the third vote came, deprived of Henry’s irresistible eloquence, the vote was lost.

Thus the Baptists came near being an established denomination over their own most solemn protest. This is not the only opportunity the Baptists ever had of becoming established by law, but is probably the nearest they ever came to it.

22. Not long after this, the Church of England was entirely disestablished in America. No religious denomination was supported by the Central Government (a few separated State governments still had establishment), Church and state, so far as the United States was concerned, were entirely separated. These two, Church and State, elsewhere at least, had for 1,500 years (since 313) been living in unholy wedlock. Religious Liberty was, at least here in the United States, resurrected to die no more, and now gradually but in many places slowly, it is spreading throughout the world.

23. But even in the United States, the Church and State idea died hard. It lingered on in several of the separate States, long after Religious Liberty had been put into the Constitution of the United States. Massachusetts, where the Church and State idea first found a lodging place in America, has, as already stated, finally given it up. It had lived there over two and one-half centuries. Utah is the last lingering spot left to disfigure the face of the first and greatest nation on earth to adopt and cherish “Religious Liberty.” Remember there can be no real and absolute Religious liberty in any nation where the Government gives its support to one special religious denomination.

24. Some serious questions have many times been asked concerning the Baptists: Would they, as a denomination, have accepted from any nation or state an offer of “establishment” if such nation or state had freely made them such an offer? And, would they, in case they had accepted such an offer, have become persecutors of others like Catholics or Episcopals, or Lutherans or Presbyterians, or Congregationalists? Probably a little consideration of such questions now would not be amiss. Have the Baptists, as a fact, ever had such an opportunity?

Is it not recorded in history, that on one occasion, the King of the Netherlands (the Netherlands at that time embracing Norway and Sweden, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark) had under serious consideration the question of having an established religion? Their kingdom at that period was surrounded on almost all sides by nations or governments with established religions–religions supported by the Civil Government.

It is stated that the King of Holland appointed a committee to examine into the claims of all existing churches or denominations to see which had the best claim to be the New Testament Church. The committee reported back that the Baptists were the best representatives of New Testament teachings. Then the King offered to make the Baptist “the established” church or denomination of his kingdom. The Baptists kindly thanked him but declined, stating that it was contrary to their fundamental convictions and principles.

But this was not the only opportunity they ever had of having their denomination the established religion of a people. They certainly had that opportunity when Rhode Island Colony was founded. And to have persecuted others–that would have been an impossibility if they were to continue being Baptists. They were the original advocates of “Religious Liberty.” That really is one of the fundamental articles of their religious faith. They believed in the absolute separation of church and state.

25. So strong has been the Baptist conviction on the question of Church and State combination, that they have invariably declined all offers of help from the State. We give here two instances. One in Texas and the other in Mexico. Long years ago in the days of Baylor University’s babyhood, Texas offered to help her. She declined the help though she was in distressing need. The Texas Methodists had a baby school in Texas at the same time. They accepted the State help; that school finally fell into the hands of the State.

The case in Mexico occurred in this wise: W. D. Powell was our missionary to Mexico. By his missionary work he had made a great impression for the Baptists upon Governor Madero of the State of Coahuila. Madero offered a great gift to the Baptists from the State, if the Baptists would establish a good school in the State of Coahuila, Mexico. The matter was submitted by Powell to the Foreign Board. The gift was declined because it was to be from the State. Afterwards Madero gave a good large sum personally. That was accepted and Madero Institute was built and established.

SOME AFTER WORDS

1. During every period of the “Dark Ages” there were in existence many Christians and many separate and independent Churches, some of them dating back to the times of the Apostles, which were never in any way connected with the Catholic Church. They always wholly rejected and repudiated the Catholics and their doctrines. This is a fact clearly demonstrated by credible history.

2. These Christians were the perpetual objects of bitter and relentless persecution. History shows that during the period of the “Dark Ages,” about twelve centuries, beginning with A.D. 426, there were about fifty millions of these Christians who died martyr deaths. Very many thousands of others, both preceding and succeeding the “Dark Ages,” died under the same hard hand of persecution.

3. These Christians, during these dark days of many centuries, were called by many different names, all given to them by their enemies. These names were sometimes given because of some specially prominent and heroic leader and sometimes from other causes; and sometimes, yea, many times, the same people, holding the same views, were called by different names in different localities. But amid all the many changes of names, there was one special name or rather designation, which clung to at least some of these Christians, throughout all the “Dark Ages,” that designation being “Ana-Baptist.” This compound word applied as a designation of some certain Christians was first found in history during the third century; and a suggestive fact soon after the origin of Infant Baptism, and a more suggestive fact even prior to the use of the name Catholic. Thus the name “Ana-Baptists” is the oldest denominational name in history.

4. A striking peculiarity of these Christians was and continued to be in succeeding centuries: They rejected the man-made doctrine of “Infant Baptism” and demanded rebaptism, even though done by immersion for all those who came to them, having been baptized in infancy. For this peculiarity they were called “Ana-Baptists.”

5. This, special designation was applied to many of these Christians who bore other nicknames; especially is this true of the Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses and Ancient Waldenses and others. In later centuries this designation came to be a regular name, applied to a distinct group. These were simply called “Ana- Baptists” and gradually all other names were dropped. Very early in the sixteenth century, even prior to the origin of the Lutheran Church, the first of all the Protestant Churches, the word “ana” was beginning to be left off, and they were simply called “Baptists.”

6. Into the “dark ages” went a group of many churches which were never in any way identified with the Catholics. Out of the “dark ages” came a group of many churches, which had never been in any way identified with the Catholics.

The following are some of the fundamental doctrines to which they held when they went in: And the same are, the fundamental doctrines to which they held when they came out: And the same are the fundamental doctrines to which they now hold.

If you want to read the whole book click on the link above.

The Bible tells us that “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Romans 13:1) Since God is in control of how the whole election is going to turn out; how much more control can He have over just one man that proclaims to believe in Him? Sen. McCain has not announced his VP yet; which means there is still time for God to move. My own personal choice would be for McCain to choose Huckabee as his VP; but is that God’s choice? Let’s use some biblical strategy to help McCain be moved in the right direction and trust God to know what that is. What are some of the things He has told us in His word?

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” (2 Chronicles 7:14)
“Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” (Matthew 17:19-21)

I confess. I haven’t fasted in years. This morning I woke up and God laid it on my heart to fast and pray for Sen. McCain to make the right VP choice for God’s perfect plan. Trusting God with helping McCain choose the right VP and following God’s plan for obtaining the faith to do the impossible; will make my choice of whether or not to vote for McCain a lot easier. I still have total peace with keeping the promise I made to God years ago to vote my Bible. My personal decision will depend on whom McCain picks. To earn my vote, Sen. McCain must pick a VP that has a record of standing for moral values issues. That disqualifies many of those on the rumored short list, including Romney. Romney’s true record is a values voter’s nightmare. Even his miraculous conversion has been overweighed by his actions of recently endorsing and helping a moral values liberal candidate [Charles Summers] even though there was a Republican moral values conservative candidate [Dean Scontras] opposing him. If you are a values voter living in Maine; you can blame Romney that you don’t have a strong pro-life GOP candidate to vote for.

Others that have not made the promise that I did may be led in a different direction. Regardless, it’s not too late to leave this in God’s worthy hands. Will others join with me in prayer and fasting that God will help Sen. McCain make the right VP choice and give us all wisdom in how to vote in November? We can all pray together and choose the best day(s) individually to fast. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20)

I have a question I’d like answered. Many Christians have made commitments to God that we will NOT vote for candidates with records of being liberal on the moral values issues and we fear God more than Obama; do those opposing Huckabee honestly fear Huckabee more than Obama?

We knew about the Rasmussen poll results (linked here) that showed Huckabee leading the VP choices with an overall +8 compared to Romney’s -6; that came out just before publication of the Washington Times article, “Evangelicals warn against McCain-Romney ticket” (read by clicking here) and and an article posted on Real Clear Politics, “McCain Should Pick Romney, And Soon.” (to read article click here) What’s the hurry? Were you worried McCain would wait long enough that we’d all see how Romney hurts the ticket?

Then on Sunday, Aug. 3rd; “white evangelical bigots” were ripped in the Washington Times Editorial, “Campaign is no place for religious bigotry.” (click here to read) Which was probably referring to the Zogby poll results which once again showed Huckabee leading in the rest of the choices. (click here for summary and poll results)

The Sunday Washington Times Editorial was quickly followed by a “Letter to editor: Slander Not True” on Monday, Aug. 4th; once again screaming evangelical bigotry. (read here) At least they published one rebuttal. “Letter to editor: Romney? No Thanks” was published today, Aug. 6th. (read here)

The truth comes out! It appears like the Washington Times published 3 hit pieces in a row to follow up at least 2 separate polls proving Romney hurts more than he helps. Romneybots are kneecapping Huckabee and his supporters; because there is no other strategy. Romney is not anywhere close to hitting the target! They are LOSING any hope of Romney being VP or being the top dog in 2012. When all else fails; scream bigot.

McCain reminds me of an old 9 passenger station wagon we used to own. We could count on it to get us where we needed to go and had room to take others with us. McCain has a record of getting things done and including those from other parties to go along. But, like our old station wagon; McCain is getting older and doesn’t look quite as nice. Although I’m pretty sure he’s got a quite a few miles left; he still needs to choose a good VP as his backup. Rasmussen’s recent poll says the 3 top choices are Huckabee, Lieberman, and Romney.
Read: “Huckabee, Lieberman Have Highest Favorables among Possible McCain Veep Choices”

Lieberman is a Democrat; so as a VP for the GOP, I’d consider him a “foreign” model and would walk on by.  (Way too many years with family members earning their livings by working in factories to buy foreign!)

Romney reminds me of a slick sports car that during the primaries I figuratively “took for a test drive” by doing some research. The records showed the “transmission was slipping” because of some liberal stands on moral values. The “engine was knocking” due to “extremely slow job growth compared to the rest of the country.” The “mechanics” said they fixed the problems; but can I be sure? It’s obvious that Romneycare is still causing it to “burn lots of oil.”
Read: “The Failure of Romneycare Further Demonstrates Romney not an “Economic Conservative.”

Huckabee reminds me of my minivan. It’s a lot like our old station wagon; but a slightly updated model. Like McCain, Huckabee worked really hard and was willing to put partisanship aside to get things done as economically as possible.  He also worked hard for equality of minorities.

I’m sold on McCain/Huckabee; because I sure can’t afford that brand new Obama model SUV! He not only wants us to make the car payments and supply the gas; he also expects us to provide room and board for everyone he decides to give a free ride.

Dear Sen. McCain,

I am enclosing a check for $1.00 toward your campaign; promising you will “get more for your buck with Huck.” Because, I will buy my own yard signs, bumper stickers, T-shirts, etc. plus volunteer my service to help you get elected, and send as much money as possible on our fixed income, if you choose Mike Huckabee as your VP running mate. (Many others have said they will do the same.)

I also have a suggestion for a campaign slogan, “American’s Future Looks Great with McCain/Huckabee ’08.” You and Gov. Huckabee both have a reputation of reaching across party aisles to get things done fiscally responsibly. You are both “Leader[s] We Can Believe In” that can lead us to reuniting our country and restoring America’s good name.

Remember the old saying, “A stitch in time saves 9”? Here is a suggestion for a McCain/Huckabee campaign issue: “Conservative Principles through Conservation by Restoring America’s Foundation.” This can be accomplished by promoting America’s self reliance [food, energy, and defense], capitalism [pursuing the American Dream through hard work and personal responsibility rather than being enslaved in poverty by entitlements], restoring and rebuilding our infrastructure, restoring the godly moral values our country was founded on, promoting education rather than entitlements or incarcerations, etc.

You can concentrate on the things you’re best at; such as restoring the military and their reputation. Huckabee can concentrate on restoring the godly moral values and self-government our country was founded on. It can’t survive under the immoral socialist governmental control promoted by Obama. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” You and Huckabee can work together on restoring our energy independence, infrastructure, capitalism, personal responsibility toward self support and health, stop taxing productivity and rewarding underachieving, etc. McCain/Huckabee can be the GOP’s “Dream Team” as soon as Huckabee’s true fiscal record is revealed; because Huckabee has the chief executive experience you’re lacking. Huckabee can excite the evangelicals, blacks, and youth voters, and can call to active duty his volunteer army [hucksarmy.com] of grassroots supporters that can “enlist” new recruits by exciting the base to combat Obamamania, and bringing more voters willing to vote for the McCain/Huckabee ticket.

The most important thing to me is the godly moral values I hold dear. If I vote my Bible; God will take care of my wallet. Please still choose a consistent moral values conservative as your VP even if you don’t choose Gov. Huckabee. Let the voters choose the “changes” we want by giving us a clear choice between an immoral socialist government histories have proven doesn’t work or returning to morality and self-government capitalism America has proven does work.

Remember, there are a lot more average Americans than there are wealthy elitist. Please be the “maverick” you have the reputation of being by going against the GOP elitist and taking the McCain/Huckabee message to “we the people.” With your leadership, “we the people” can win! Our future depends on it. Thank you for your time and your service to America.

Sincerely,

Granny T

]]> http://grannyt53.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/get-more-for-your-buck-with-huck/feed/ 3 grannyt53 http://grannyt53.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/who-should-we-blame/ http://grannyt53.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/who-should-we-blame/#comments Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:32:55 +0000 grannyt53 http://grannyt53.wordpress.com/?p=24 ]]>

Environmentalists are complaining about pollution and “global warming.” Everyone is complaining about high energy prices. Christians are complaining about the moral decay of America. As in the phrase, “Thou dost protest too much;” those crying the loudest could be the ones most at fault.

What are environmentalists doing that could possibly cause pollution and what they call “global warming?” America has the technology and some of the strictest laws for pumping and refining oil environmentally friendly; yet we are supplying very little oil. Oil companies are willing to compromise to keep wildlife safe. Yet, the environmentalists and the politicians they have boughten won’t let us drill or refine here. Therefore, other countries are producing our energy needs causing even more global pollution.

All of us can do something to help with the high energy prices. Some analyst believe oil prices will fall immediately if Congress passes laws allowing new oil wells and refineries to be built in our United States and off our shores. Let’s contact our Congressmen and tell them to do their jobs and pass laws to responsibly drill and refine at home. We should be drilling and refining at the same time we are working on new energy possibilities. We should get our autos tuned up, oil changed, tires inflated properly, and slow down. During the “oil shortage” we had a national maximum speed limit that was lifted when it was no longer needed. Discussion should be encouraged to decide whether or not it helped enough to do it again until new technology is implemented. We can also set thermostats higher in the summer and lower in the winter. Use fans to replace and/or supplement air conditioning.

What are we Christians doing wrong that could cause moral decay? I place the largest part of that blame on leaders that are either sissies or hypocrites. Mike Huckabee has said we shouldn’t compromise our principles for some one else’s politics. Yet, many preachers have quit preaching biblical principles because of political “correctness.” Americans are losing our religious freedom because of that failure. “If you don’t use it; you lose it.” Some of our spiritual leaders have been hypocritical during election times. They have enough backbone to preach against sin; but then support candidates that were either openly against or inconsistent in those same moral values.

God told us how to fix America in the Bible. 2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV) “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” God doesn’t say He’ll hear, forgive and heal if non-God fearing people “turn from their wicked ways.” What happens to our land depends on those of us that belong to Him. It is us that needs to humble ourselves, pray, seek His face and turn from our wicked ways. Then He will “hear from heaven, and will forgive [our] sin, and will heal [our] land.” Most of God’s promises are conditional; which means God will do something if we do what He tells us to. If we want America fixed we better get our own selves right first; then unite and work together to fix the rest of Americas’ problems.

I’m writing this article to address some issues in an “Exclusive interview with Mark DeMoss.” http://tinyurl.com/5zz86d Mr. DeMoss said he hasn’t been receiving many e-mails about the elections lately. “It’s just very quiet. It could meant there’s a real sense of apathy or it could mean they’re’ waiting for the general election to begin. But it’s a surprise, given the way email networks work now.”

Later in the interview he said, “And there’s this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 40-percent.”

1. Why aren’t evangelicals e-mailing about political concerns?

Many of us are still in shock. We cannot believe that after years of preaching to vote our Bibles; many of our “shepherds” were leading us in the wrong directions. Some supported openly pro-abortion pro-homosexual candidates. Others supported candidates with a history of supporting pro-homosexual and pro-abortion agendas; expecting us to just trust that their conveniently timed “conversion” to moral values was genuine. Some of them literally sold out for a chair and a promise of a seat at the rich mans table. Do you really wonder why the “sheep” are no longer looking to those people for advice? Especially, since there was a candidate with a 100% pro-moral values record to choose from instead.

2. Why are so many evangelicals supporting and voting for Obama?

Many of the “sheep” aren’t as grounded in the Scriptures as others. But, they probably heard about some of the other candidates’ records of weaknesses on moral values or flip flops. Why were we told we shouldn’t vote for Kerry because his pro-abortion and pro-homosexual views were wrong and then told to vote for Rudy? Why were we told Kerry’s record of flip flops was a good reason not to vote for him and then told to vote for Romney? Wouldn’t some consider that hypocritical? Why wouldn’t ungrounded sheep fall for Obama’s message not even realizing he had “changed” God’s true message of “faith, hope, and charity” to “Hope – Faith – Change”?

Not all of the voters did the research and knew about Huckabee’s consistent record or the lies conservative talk show hosts, Thompson, Romney, and the Club for Growth, were spreading. Many of us were faithful FOXNEWS watchers before we realized how biased they were against Huckabee. If America elects Obama; it will be partly due to the problems caused by our “leaders” leading in the wrong direction.

Many values conservative are lower income wage earners. “We the people” want someone with moral values that is willing to listen to us. Read my blog article, “Reagan’s 4 legged elephant landslide victory” to see what it takes for Republican victories.

3. Is there really a sense of apathy or silence?

Some of us sheep are trying to lead the charge to “change” things in the right direction. You might be surprised at how much is really going on in our grassroots effort. Visit http://www.huckpac.com/ to see how actively Huckabee has been working to get conservative value candidates elected. He currently has a poll in his blog link asking what we feel are some of the most important issues. He has asked our advice on why we are losing seats in formerly safe red areas to the Dems. We have an army of supporters and are looking to enlist more recruits at http://forum.hucksarmy.com/.

Some of us Huckabee supporters are fighting hard for McCain to choose Huckabee as his VP to “Save 08”. If you agree with our cause and have the backbone to stand up and fight the Washington elitist; come join our special forces at http://save08.org/ . Read how each one of us can make a difference by working on the area right in front of us like Nehemiah. If you decide to join up; please tell them you were recruited by Granny T.

Thank you to all my friends and fellow soldiers at Huck’s Army that helped me with this blog article.