How the GOP Can Expand Our Base and Increase Support among Women

Some in the Republican Party want to know why we have a problem with the female vote. I should have made it clear that my previous article was written from the view of women. If men want to continue calling us “idiots” and make fun of us for seeing things differently than they do – the GOP will never make up the ground we’ve lost with women voters.

I firmly believe that women are made very differently than men. We are not as strong physically and we are different emotionally. Our brains are used differently. Some of us make decisions based on emotions. That is why I prefer strong confident men taking the leadership positions – especially when they are willing to listen to some input from us women so they can see some different views before making the final decisions.

Because we sometimes base decisions on emotion, trust and likeability are very important. We also base our decisions on how it will affect our family. That is why things like education, health care, how to provide food and shelter, national security, etc. are big issues. (The national security issue is probably the reason the liberal media wasn’t doing their job of reporting the news about what was going on in Libya and Iran before the election. They didn’t want to lose another election like they did against Bush.)

I’m more the traditional type of woman that is married to a godly man that has always provided for the family. He allowed me to work outside the home if I really wanted to – which was mostly volunteer work at various private schools where our children attended. He liked coming home to his wife and kids all being here. Even though our kids are grown, he still feels lost when I’m not home. He’s often teased that if anything happens to me he might have to buy some kind of life sized stuffed doll to hold my laptop and sit in my recliner next to his. He’d get our son to fix the laptop with some kind of sound system that would periodically either giggle or say, “Grrrrrrr!” and he’d be fine.

My sister (and several other women I communicate with) work/worked outside of the home. Therefore, their viewpoints are somewhat different than mine. Not all women have a strong godly confident man that understands the differences of the sexes and is willing to let both of us excel in our unique specialties to make the family complete in the way God intended. Those women do not want to return to the 50’s.

I mentioned in one of my comments under my previous article that I use Scripture when talking about why I believe in personal responsibility and don’t think government should be in the charity business. I often thought my mom’s favorite verse was the last part of 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “… if any would not work, neither should he eat.” She started quoting that verse as soon as we were toddlers. We had to clean up our toys before we ate. When we got older, we couldn’t eat supper until our chores (and at least some of our homework) were done after school. I taught my kids the same way. Shouldn’t more people be taught that kind of values today? We need to get back to calling government assistance “charity” rather than “welfare” or “entitlements” – even though the Robin Hood mentality really isn’t charity.

Some people bash the religious right for our godly views. But, maybe if more people would look to the Manual God provided for His creation the world would be a better place. How much better off would we be if work ethics like my mother were taught and some of these following verses were followed?

1 Timothy 5:3-11 3 Honour widows that are widows indeed. 4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. 5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. 6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. 7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. 8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. 9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, 10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. 11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;”

Those verses were written to the church not the government btw. Sometimes I wonder if the reason Legislators set up Social Security and government assistance have anything to do with either them (or their wives) not getting along with the in-laws when they got old and moved in with them. Also, is it possible those Legislators read some of those verses when they set up widow’s benefits for lifetime homemakers allowing her to use her husband’s Social Security?

Research shows that children raised in a home with both a mom and a dad are the most stable. Children need to see the differences in the sexes to help them understand their own differences and emotions. Stable families help make a stable community.

I’ve listed some reasons the religious right is such a huge part of the Republican base. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” With an immoral society we need more policemen to protect us from thieves and violence. Our country was founded on godly values and works the best when they are followed. We should be explaining these values to more people rather than thinking about running away from them. We won’t need as much government if we are governing ourselves.

If we can find a way to teach some of these values to our youth and explain why our founders gave us a Republic rather than a Democracy – we might be able to get more of them to vote Republican.

Published in: on November-06:00bSun, 11 Nov 2012 16:04:50 -0600000000pmSun, 11 Nov 2012 16:04:50 -060012 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm  Leave a Comment  

“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  

2011 Conservative Leadership Conference and the 2012 GOP Race

Most of you know that I’ve taken some time off from politics for a family emergency. My son was on life support with an extremely dangerous type of pneumonia. Although he has not fully recovered (doctor says about 3 more months) – he is home from the hospital now. Praise the Lord!

When Huckabee dropped out of the 2012 GOP presidential race I became undecided on who to vote for and/or support. I have been trying to keep up on some of the news and watched most of the New Hampshire debate. I missed the Republican Leadership Conference due to other family issues. So, today I started looking for some of the videos. I’ll post a few links here for others that may be interested:

Here’s the C-SPAN link to the evening of Day 1. Newt Gingrich’s speech is around the 48.30 mark.

Here is the link to the C-SPAN video of Day 2 that includes Herman Cain (around the 01:57 mark), Ron Paul (around the 02:22 mark), Michelle Bachmann (around the 03:39 mark), and Rick Santorum (around the 04:28 mark):

Here is the link to the C-SPAN video of Day 3 just in case the direct link to the video of Rick Perry’s speech quits working. Perry’s speech starts around the 3:30 mark.

Rick Perry speech at the RLC

Herman Cain speech at the RLC

It has been reported and/or suspected that Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman bussed in supporters (found in comments under Race42012 article) to help them win the straw poll. If true, it must have worked because Paul won the straw poll and Huntsman came in second – even though Huntsman didn’t even speak at the convention. I’m disappointed that straw poll votes can be bought that way.

My vote is not for sale! I will remain undecided until one of the candidates earns my vote. After watching Rick Perry’s speech at the RLC, I hope he joins the race so there are more conservative candidates to choose from.

H/T: The Right Scoop for posting the Cain and Perry videos so I was able to find them easy and to Right Speak for posting a link for the schedule so I knew which potential candidates to look for in the RLC videos.

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  

Comparing Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, and Daniels as FiCons

On one of the blog sites that I frequent a few supporters of other candidates questioned Huckabee’s FiCon credentials. On another site a contributor requested that someone “rank these same 4 as to who would be best for a poor economy?” I decided to give that a try using the data available at I’m hoping their information is accurate and am assuming it is from an unbiased source.

I’ll be posting only the information available during the years 3 of the 4 Governors (Huckabee, Romney, and Pawlenty) were serving together and include Daniels during the last two years of that time-frame so we can do our best to compare apples to apples. I hope I figured this correctly. Please feel free to check all the numbers and my math. (If the link starts working properly. I was having trouble with it most of the day.)

First we’ll compare the Gross State Product growth:

Arkansas GSP grew from $77.8 in 2003 to $97.6 in 2007 at an annual rate of 6.35%
Massachusetts GSP grew from $297.3 in 2003 to $353.8 in 2007 at an annual rate of 4.75%
Minnesota GSP grew from $212.4 in 2003 to $255.3 in 2007 at an annual rate of 5.05%
Indiana GSP grew from $239.6 in 2005 (when Daniels took office) to $263.1 in 2007 at an annual rate during the two years we can use to compare of 4.90%

Next we’ll compare the government spending in the state and local government for the four states:

Arkansas spending grew from $13.8 in 2003 to $19.1 in 2007 at an annual rate of 9.97%
Massachusetts spending grew from $40.7 in 2003 to $64.1 in 2007 at an annual rate of 14.37%
Minnesota spending grew from $37.6 in 2003 to $47.2 in 2007 at an annual rate of 6.38%
Indiana spending grew from $42.2 in 2005 to $46.7 in 2007 at an annual rate of 5.33%

Lastly, we’ll compare the Real State Growth:

Arkansas RSG was 3.0% in 2003, 3.7% in 2004, 2.9% in 2005, 2.7% in 2006 and 1.0% in 2007 with a 2.66% yearly average RSG
Massachusetts RST was 1.5% in 2003, 2.0% in 2004, 1.1% in 2005, 1.5% in 2006 and 2.0% in 2007 with a 1.62% yearly average of RSG
Minnesota 3.4% in 2003, 4.1% in 2004, 1.7% in 2005, 0.2% in 2006, and 0.7% in 2007 with a 2.02% yearly average RSG
Indiana 0.3% in 2005, 1.1% in 2006, and 3.1% in 2007 with a 1.50% yearly average RSG

In summary:
Huckabee saw the best annual rate of growth in Gross State Product. Daniels and Pawlenty saw the least growth in spending. Huckabee did the best in Real State Growth. Romney did the worst in all three categories.

I’ll be voting Huckabee for President 2012!

Note: If there is someone out there with the ability to put this in chart or graph form I would really appreciate it.

Update: I struck out the comment about Romney because it was properly pointed out to be inaccurate. H/T Jeff Fuller

Update 2: I was asked to calculate some information for Utah and Jon Huntsman during this time frame, too:

Utah GSP grew from $90.7 in 2005 to $109.6 in 2007 at an annual rate of 10.42%

Utah spending grew from $17.2 in 2005 to $20.0 in 2007 at an annual rate of 8.14%

Utah RSG was 5.7% in 2005, 6.6% in 2006, and 5.8% in 2007 with a 6.03% yearly average RSG

Note: I’ll be adding more information as I calculate it. I’m not sure if I’ll post the information here or write a new blog.

Published in: on May-06:00bMon, 02 May 2011 18:24:37 -0600000000pmMon, 02 May 2011 18:24:37 -060011 4, 2008 at 6:24 pm  Comments (4)  

Mike Huckabee’s newest book, “A Simple Government”

February 22, is not only my birthday – it is also the release date for Mike Huckabee’s newest book: A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don’t!) Today I was part of “an exclusive on-the-record interview conference call” with former Governor/ former (and hopefully future) Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee discussing his new book.

I support Mike Huckabee – because his views come closer to mine than any other political candidate I’ve found.  I believe we need a Republican Presidential nominee that is willing to stand strongly on all three legs of the Republican platform: social, fiscal, and defense.  Listening to Mike Huckabee on that conference call today convinced me even more that he is the one I want leading America.

Here are some reasons why – just from the conference call today:

  • He was prompt.  The call was supposed to start at 3:15 Eastern and it started at 3:15 Eastern.
  • He realizes you can’t talk about the economy without talking about the family.
  • He realizes that a great deal of our problem with the economy is because of failed families.
  • He realizes the differences between the family’s responsibilities and the government’s.
  • He realizes that if people would give “one dime on every dollar they make” to their own churches we wouldn’t need government programs and explained how the church he attended in Arkansas helped provide children with food for the weekend.
  • He realizes there shouldn’t be a “disconnect between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives.”   “All SoCons are FiCons – but not all FiCons are SoCons” and voting records prove it.
  • He realizes our founders expected our Government to be administered as locally as possible and would be willing to get rid of the Department of Education so that could be more possible.
  • He realizes that “education is the ticket out of the hole” that can turn tax takers into tax payers.
  • He realizes the “common opponent is Barack Obama and not each other.”
  • He realizes it is troubling that we are fighting these wars with guards and reserves that aren’t complaining because they are good soldiers.  “We’ve worn them out.”  They were supposed to be here to help at home.

You can read an excerpt from the first chapter of Mike Huckabee’s book by clicking here.


Here is a link for a map of where you can get Mike Huckabee to autograph your copy of his new book and a link with a list of places he will be on tour and/or places where you can order it.

I haven’t received my copy of his book yet; but will be getting my birthday gift autographed at the book signing in Dubuque this weekend.

Published in: on February-06:00bMon, 21 Feb 2011 16:53:33 -0600000000pmMon, 21 Feb 2011 16:53:33 -060011 4, 2008 at 4:53 pm  Comments (1)  

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

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”?

Published in: on October-06:00bMon, 27 Oct 2008 11:52:56 -0600000000amMon, 27 Oct 2008 11:52:56 -060008 4, 2008 at 11:52 am  Comments (5)  

Actions speak louder than words

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.

Published in: on September-06:00bFri, 19 Sep 2008 16:46:53 -0600000000pmFri, 19 Sep 2008 16:46:53 -060008 4, 2008 at 4:46 pm  Comments (4)  


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)  

Get More for Your Buck With Huck

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 [] 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.


Granny T

Published in: on July-06:00bSat, 05 Jul 2008 14:35:25 -0600000000pmSat, 05 Jul 2008 14:35:25 -060008 4, 2008 at 2:35 pm  Comments (3)