Thomas Jefferson and GOD

It is unfortunate in this age of finger tip knowledge that many are not educated as to the intent of the founding father.Many try to say the founders were not “Christians” or that they were all “Deist” or even “Atheist”.So what is the truth? Are we a nation founded on Judea-Christian values? How do we determine intent? Read the documents, biographies, federalist papers and the constitution. By delving into these documents we get a glimpse into their thoughts and their intent.
Let’s first look at the actual Declaration of Independence for here we find a clue as to what Thomas Jefferson, a founding father, believed.
In the opening paragraph of the Declaration, written by Thomas Jefferson, we find … “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Here, Thomas Jefferson references the “Laws of Nature” and of “Nature’s God”. If not a reference to a higher being or to a creator what is this in reference to? It indicates that nature has laws and nature has a GOD or ruler. Why state this in the very first paragraph?  Is it because it is important to recognize that our rights are natural rights granted by GOD?
The second paragraph of the Declaration begins with “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,.” Once again a creator of men is mentioned. Not only mentioned but acknowledged as the force giving our founders their rights.  In his original draft of the declaration Jefferson said thisiWe hold these truths to be [sacred and undeniable] selfevident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;  Rights that include life : the ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks: the period of time when a person is alive: the experience of being alive or as Jefferson wanted it preservation of life.(Can the abortion industry and pro-choice crowd say they are giving life to the innocent babies?) Liberty, freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.2.freedom from external or foreign rule; independence and the pursuit of happiness an effort to secure or attain; quest:the quality or state of being happy.good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy.. So the rights granted us by our CREATOR are to live, to be free from intrusive government, and the ability to try to be content or happy.

Thomas Jefferson believed in GOD given rights and that ALL our rights come from our creator. Not true you say? Let’s look a little closer on November 29, 1775 Jefferson said this “Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.“. In the first draft of the declaration he wrote:
“all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which . . . they cannot deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

So Thomas Jefferson believed in God, the creator and he believed that all inherent rights come from the creator. The argument that the intent of the founding fathers was not that our rights come from God, but from man is not only false but easily debunked.



Publius Huldah Discusses Nullification on Women Patriots

Publius-HuldahTuesday, October 29th, Women Patriots were joined by Publius Huldah, lawyer and Constitutionalist on the topic of Nullification.    Below  is an excerpt from her latest column, Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments!

By Publius Huldah

What Mark Levin says in “The Liberty Amendments” in support of an Article V convention is not true.1

On one side of this controversy are those who want to restore our Constitution by requiring federal and State officials to obey the Constitution we have; or by electing ones who will.  We show that the Oath of Office at Art. VI, last clause, requires federal 2 and state officials to support the Constitution.  This requires them to refuse to submit to – to nullify – acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution.  This is how they “support” the Constitution!

We note that the Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone.  The Oath does not require obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to any federal court.

We understand that resistance to tyranny is a natural right – and it is a duty.

We have read original writings of our Framers and know what our Framers actually told the States to do when the federal government violates the Constitution: Nullification of the unlawful act is among the first of the recommended remediesnot one of which is “amendment of the Constitution”.

It is already proved in James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers, that our Framers endorsed nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison summed it up as follows:

“…when powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act4 is “the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” 5

The claims of the nullification deniers have been proven to be false.  To persist in those claims – or to do as Levin seems to do and ignore the remedy of nullification – is intellectually and morally indefensible.  So why don’t they apologize to the public and recant their errors?

Instead, they continue to tell us that what we need is a “convention of the States” (which Levin and his mentors insist is provided by Article V of the Constitution) to propose amendments to the Constitution, and that this is the only way out.

Yes, they tell us, the only way to deal with a federal government which consistently ignores and tramples over the Constitution is …. to amend the Constitution!

Do you see how silly that is?

Read more by Publius Huldah

Check the archives for our interview with Publius Huldah and be sure and

tune in to the Women Patriots Show Tuesday nights from 8-10pm Eastern.