Why a Moderate Independent Woman Voted for McCain in ’08 & Obama in ‘12 and Other Reasons Romney Lost the Election

On Thursday after the election I spent over an hour on the phone with my sister. We hadn’t talked politics since around the time of the Illinois primary. At the end of our conversation she asked me to write this blog article to explain why she voted for Obama this time (after voting for McCain last time) and why some people we know chose to just stay home. I will personally accept some of the blame for not thinking to contact my sister to try to sway her vote – but I admit I was shocked to find out she voted for Obama. (Btw her husband cancelled out her vote which wouldn’t have made a difference here in Illinois anyway.) I should also mention that her husband carried on running the family farm, expanded the family corporate farming business, and is on a major IL (and possibly national) farming committee. They run into politicians on a somewhat regular basis. My sister is just as vocal as I am and told me she will be sharing some of her views to politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Although she and I are a lot alike in some things – we have very different opinions on others. I admit I am a right wing conservative. She is a moderate Independent that has only voted in 3 primaries in the last 38 years because she hates “declaring” which ballot she wants. Her first time “declaring” was to vote for her high school government teacher that ran for office on the Democrat ticket. Through his teachings she is still an extremely strong supporter of “checks and balances” in which she believes different parts of government should be controlled by the different parties. She splits her ballot up between them. She “declared” in 2008 to vote for Huckabee and in this year’s primary to vote for Santorum.

Anyone that knows me knows that I didn’t decide to support Mitt until AFTER he picked Paul Ryan for his VP. His choice of Ryan helped me to trust that he would govern “as a conservative” like he said. But, not everyone is as familiar with Paul Ryan as I am by being a political junkie that also lives only about 20 miles away from him. My sister said Romney would have had her vote if he would have picked Huckabee or Santorum as his VP.

Mitt supporters were notorious for calling those of us that chose other candidates bigots. I know there are some bigots out there – but not many among those that I associate with. According to information from The Pew Forum, How the Faithful Voted: 2012 Preliminary Analysis; Romney received a higher percentage of the “Protestant/Other Christian” vote (including Catholics and Evangelicals) and really gained among the Jewish vote. Ironically, he lost 2 points among the Mormons compared to Bush in 2004. I’m not saying for sure that there weren’t some voters that stayed home because of bigotry. I just don’t see it as much bigotry as that moderate Republicans don’t give religious voters a good enough reason to bother voting – regardless of which Party they usually support.

Please don’t think of this article as Mitt bashing. I voted for Romney/Ryan and worked hard trying to persuade others to vote for them. But, if Obama doesn’t completely destroy our country and we do get another chance we need to answer the question – what did go wrong? I feel I can shed some light on this because I have so many friends and family that never warmed up to Romney for various reasons. These are the reasons my sister and I discussed yesterday:

• The first thing my sister said was a huge factor in her decision is that she still didn’t trust where Romney really stood on some of the issues because he seemed to change his views according to what he thought might help him get elected. She said he seemed to be trying to go to the middle after winning the nomination – but since he didn’t have a consistently conservative record to the right he didn’t have any wiggle room to keep the base when moving to the middle. (IMO this is another reason why moderate Republicans have never won a general election.)

• People want candidates to vote FOR – so tell us the best things about your candidate NOT the worst things about your competition. Several people we know have a huge issue with the negative campaigning during the primaries and some of them never got over it – whether they were done by the candidates themselves or by the Super PACs. Three quotes sum this up: 1. “He who slings mud generally loses ground.” 2. Reagan’s 11th commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.” 3. “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” Those of us that supported other candidates in the primaries realized how much it angered us that better funded candidates had the chance to define our candidate before they had the money to define themselves. Romney supporters didn’t really comprehend this roadblock until it happened to Mitt in the general election. Although I was fully on the R&R bandwagon – there was still that small voice saying, now the Romney team is facing what we did in the primaries – “What goes around comes around.”

• My sister worked as an accountant for decades. So, the issue of equal pay for men and women is a huge issue for her. After she told me she was upset by the “binders of women” in the debate (before it ever went viral) – I explained what Mitt really meant and how he actually worked toward that equality. (This point reemphasizes my previous point.)

• The way the GOP chooses the nominee needs to be changed. Solid blue states (and the bluest areas of red states) have way too much say in the GOP nomination. Electoral votes should be proportionally based by congressional districts. This will probably make the primary season take longer to decide on a candidate – but it will also help the majority of us to have a say on who our nominee is. Therefore helping us choose the strongest candidate for all of us to support. This point goes somewhat with my first point because the reddest states and the reddest areas of blue states tend to be more conservative.

• Like it or not Romney was just too wealthy. Even though some of us realize that was due to his being successful – it still made this election too easy for the Democrats to use class warfare in their campaign.

• Although my sister is not a SoCon and did not bring this point up, several of my SoCon friends have. The Chick-Fil-A appreciation day had several of us driving for hours to get to our closest Chick-Fil-A to stand in line for hours to buy “fast food.” Yet, Romney shied away from the SoCon issues and a good opportunity to speak up for the sanctity of marriage, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion.

• It has been recorded that Romney could receive fewer votes than McCain did and only 3 out of 10 eligible voters were able to re-elect Obama because of the lousy turnout. In my sister’s and my opinion part of why voters chose to stay home was due to the negative campaigning. Many Americans didn’t think Obama deserved to be re-elected – but instead of buying ads telling them why Romney/Ryan were the best for America – too much was spent telling them what they already knew was wrong with Obama.

H/T to whoever created this image that goes along with my last point.


“Give me liberty or give me death!”

America used to be “the land of opportunity” where Americans were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Many Americans were able to achieve “The American Dream” with ingenuity and hard work.

In the last couple of weeks I’ve read several stories of changes in America that have caused me to write this blog. Here are just a few examples:

Most of us are aware of Obama’s contraception mandate that goes against religious freedom. But, are you aware that Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) points out that exemptions are being granted to various organizations, including unions, but religious ones still face a mandate?

I read an article pointed out by a fellow HucksArmy member earlier this week informing us Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water

In Dependence at an all-time high Neil Boortz says:

It’s no secret that more Americans are dependent on government than ever before. The Heritage Foundation released its 2012 Index of Dependence on Government. The results emphasize our slide toward a European welfare nation.

This morning I read an article that got me even more upset. Food Inspector Confiscates Kid’s Homemade Lunch

NONE of our GOP presidential candidates are perfect. EVERY one of them has something that goes against some conservative views. Our liberties are being trampled on and instead of uniting together against the Democrats’ socialistic agenda – Republicans are fighting against each other.

Republicans had a better chance of defeating Obama before campaigns and Super PACS resorted to tearing their fellow soldiers down. Why can’t all of that money be used to point out the positives for their chosen candidate instead of negatives against their opposition?

The Republican Party and America needs a leader that will stand up and show us why he is the one to lead the fight to restore our liberties that are being taken away one by one.

I’m ready to fight to keep our freedom. America needs a Patrick Henry willing to lead the charge, “Give me liberty or give me death!” – before we are no longer a free Republic.

Published in: on February-06:00bWed, 15 Feb 2012 09:38:45 -0600000000amWed, 15 Feb 2012 09:38:45 -060012 4, 2008 at 9:38 am  Leave a Comment  

We Need to Protect Our Constitutional Rights

The Bill of Rights was added to our United States Constitution to grant us some guaranteed rights. The very First Amendment is under attack and many people are not even aware of it. What does that First Amendment guarantee us?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How is the First Amendment under attack?

The first things mentioned in the First Amendment guarantees us Freedom OF Religion and Freedom OF the Press. Those are the two things that we are going to lose if someone doesn’t step up and do something about it ASAP!

This week I received a telephone call with a taped message from former Governor and former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to inform me about a pending case against our Freedom of Religion. I don’t have a text of that recording; but here is a brief summary from the organization that called me under the Projects listed on their website:

Defending our National Day of Prayer
Right now a small but dangerous group is threatening to obliterate the name of God forever. The Freedom from Religion Foundation has succeeded in getting a legal injunction against the National Day of Prayer and is planning on using this as the basis of removing the mention of God from every aspect of our culture.

The judge that agreed to the injunction stated in her ruling that a national day of prayer “encourages all citizens to engage in prayer” and this is a “religious exercise that serves no secular function.” It is absurd to picture a society where our children and grandchildren are forbidden to pray as a nation. The reality is that if the Freedom from Religion Foundation wins this case, it would set a precedent that could eventually lead to the banning of any public mention of God.

That’s why we teamed up with Mike Huckabee to defend our God-given right to pray. We are standing up to preserve our National Day of Prayer and need as many supporters as we can get to stand with us in this battle to preserve and defend our right to pray for our country. This is a long and expensive fight, but with the help of our members and supporters we will have the power to win.

Last fall the Obama administration tried to boycott FOXNEWS but thankfully the rest of the media stepped up to keep that from happening.

The White House attempted to block Fox News from a round of interviews with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg Thursday, but the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks included in the White House pool refused to interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

This spring a reporter was “confined” in a closet when he attended a Democrat fundraiser as the designated “pool reporter” to cover Vice President Biden’s visit.

Today I found out “The President was in Boston yesterday for a fundraiser. The Boston Herald requested access. It was turned down.”
H/T Mark @ Race42012

I know some of you have to be shocked I am taking up a cause that Romney is one of the leaders of. But, this is not about Romney – this is about our freedom!

How can a former instructor of Constitutional law (Obama) get away with breaking our Constitutional Freedom of (NOT from) the Press?

Something needs to be done now before we no longer have Freedom of Religion or a Free Press.

Thank you,

Published in: on May-06:00bThu, 19 May 2011 10:43:46 -0600000000amThu, 19 May 2011 10:43:46 -060011 4, 2008 at 10:43 am  Leave a Comment  


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.


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.


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.


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.

Published in: on August-06:00bThu, 21 Aug 2008 12:27:02 -0600000000pmThu, 21 Aug 2008 12:27:02 -060008 4, 2008 at 12:27 pm  Comments (1)  

Biblical Strategy for McCain’s VP and the Election

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?

Published in: on August-06:00bWed, 20 Aug 2008 14:36:32 -0600000000pmWed, 20 Aug 2008 14:36:32 -060008 4, 2008 at 2:36 pm  Comments (4)  

The Romneybots’ Scream “Bigot” “Hale Mary” strategy

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.

Published in: on August-06:00bWed, 06 Aug 2008 17:52:36 -0600000000pmWed, 06 Aug 2008 17:52:36 -060008 4, 2008 at 5:52 pm  Comments (2)  

Who Should We Blame?

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.

Published in: on June-06:00bWed, 11 Jun 2008 14:32:55 -0600000000pmWed, 11 Jun 2008 14:32:55 -060008 4, 2008 at 2:32 pm  Comments (6)  

The Sheepbellion

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.

Published in: on June-06:00bMon, 09 Jun 2008 00:39:22 -0600000000amMon, 09 Jun 2008 00:39:22 -060008 4, 2008 at 12:39 am  Leave a Comment  

Only One Life

I found this poem online. I don’t know who the author is.

Only One Life

Two little lines I heard one day, Traveling along life’s busy way;
Bringing conviction to my heart, And from my mind would not depart;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Only one life, yes only one, Soon will its fleeting hours be done;
Then, in ‘that day’ my Lord to meet, And stand before His Judgement seat;
Only one life,’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.
Only one life, the still small voice, Gently pleads for a better choice
Bidding me selfish aims to leave, And to God’s holy will to cleave;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.
Only one life, a few brief years, Each with its burdens, hopes, and fears;
Each with its clays I must fulfill, living for self or in His will;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.
When this bright world would tempt me sore, When Satan would a victory score;
When self would seek to have its way, Then help me Lord with joy to say;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.
Give me Father, a purpose deep, In joy or sorrow Thy word to keep;
Faithful and true what e’er the strife, Pleasing Thee in my daily life;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.
Oh let my love with fervor burn, And from the world now let me turn;
Living for Thee, and Thee alone, Bringing Thee pleasure on Thy throne;
Only one life, “twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.
Only one life, yes only one, Now let me say,”Thy will be done”;
And when at last I’ll hear the call, I know I’ll say “twas worth it all”;

Only one life,’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Published in: on May-06:00bThu, 08 May 2008 09:32:07 -0600000000amThu, 08 May 2008 09:32:07 -060008 4, 2008 at 9:32 am  Leave a Comment  

Was Huckabee’s “Jab” Really Aimed at Democrats?

After hearing the implied “jab” in context in which Huckabee was discussing the contrast in the election between the Democrats and Republicans; is it possible the “jab” was aimed at the Democrats rather than Gov. Romney? Could Elizabeth Holmes have an ulterior motive for trying to stir up more conflict between Gov. Huckabee’s and Gov. Romney’s supporters in her Wall Street Journal article?

“Slouched in one of the two captain’s chairs, Huckabee used his time with the press to take a thinly veiled jab at another former opponent, Mitt Romney. “You know for me, the fortunate thing is I don’t have to go around and unsay anything I said during the campaign,” he said, earning another chuckle from McCain.” http://tinyurl.com/3h4r5o

Is there some reason Ms. Holmes can’t stand seeing Sen. McCain and Gov. Huckabee getting along so well? Did Ms. Holmes read about the New York Times Magazine article in which the infamous question asked by Gov. Huckabee with an “innocent voice” being up for an award? http://tinyurl.com/554plk Could she be thinking if she could cause trouble in the GOP she might receive an award, too? You decide.

The CNN article “Rivals no more” has a link to a video almost 11 minutes long. http://tinyurl.com/3uln5u Watching the video you can see how comfortable and relaxed Sen. McCain and Gov. Huckabee are together. Sen. McCain’s comment about Gov. Huckabee at the beginning of the video sums it up. “We are friends; we became friends on the campaign trail.”

Here is part of the interview so you can evaluate the “jab” in context to help with your decision. I did my best to transcribe it correctly from the CNN video.

Huckabee: “The main thing is getting Sen. McCain elected. That’s what’s important for all Republicans who care about the future of the country. There’s going to be a real stark contrast between Sen. McCain and either of the Democrats. We’ve got to make sure that America makes the right decision in Nov. and that’s what’s important.”

Reporter: “Do you expect to be on the road for Sen. McCain?”

Sen. McCain: “Yes!” [Laughter]

Reporter: [inaudible question]

Huckabee: “Absolutely! We’ve conversed and our staff has talked to Sen. McCain’s staff. We hope to be able to help in a number of areas; wherever we’re called upon to be helpful you bet. Because I think this election is a pivotal seminal election in America. And the contrast is going to be stark and significant. This isn’t a matter of degrees. It will be a very different direction America will take depending on who the next president is. As a result to that; it’s going to matter a lot to us. You know for me the fortunate thing is I don’t have to go around and unsay anything I said during the campaign. We had a very civil relationship. I thought it was significant that I felt like the two of us that ran frankly the most civil campaigns in the entire Republican primary ended up the last two on our feet. I hope that’s a sign of things to come in terms of the type of campaign. Sen. McCain is clearly running that type of campaign throughout the process as evident by his actions and comments this week. I think it goes well for the long term future of the Republican Party the manner in which he’s carrying the overall effort.” http://tinyurl.com/3uln5u

Can you imagine Clinton and Obama teaming up on the campaign trail after the primaries are over? It will be almost impossible for me to think of them as friends after one of them knocks the other out.

After hearing Huckabee’s “jab” comment in context; I wish we could see or hear the “innocent voice” question in context, too. We’ll probably never know the real reason the author of the NYT Magazine article decided to include it. But, it certainly accomplished stirring up trouble in the GOP and helped knock out the religious right’s champion during the primary elections.

Published in: on April-06:00bSat, 26 Apr 2008 23:10:57 -0600000000pmSat, 26 Apr 2008 23:10:57 -060008 4, 2008 at 11:10 pm  Comments (16)