Presidents Before The Constitution

The American Revolution was a counter-revolution against the encroachment of the British Parliament. The independence movement released the thirteen colonies from foreign control. It is important to remember the American Revolution was a battle between Britain and the thirteen individually sovereign states, each with their own state governments. During the War, the state legislatures granted enumerated portions of their own limited sovereignty to an entity called the Continental Congress.

A congressman was elected by the other delegates to serve as this body’s President-his role was largely as an impartial moderator. Later in the war, the States transferred more responsibilities to the central government in the Articles of Confederation (1781). This stood as the nation’s first established constitution until the Constitutional Convention ratified the current U.S. Constitution in 1788.

Fourteen Presidents Before George Washington

George Washington was the first President to be elected under the 1788 Constitution Model. While many know of George Washington, the Presidents under the Continental Congress are largely unknown to modern Americans. They were men of great moral vigor, who stood strong for liberty, and held at the center of their ambition the glory of God.

Below is a list of the pre-constitution Presidents, along with inspiring quotes from these men who did not shy away from leadership when times were trying.

First Continental Congress

Peyton Randolph, Virginia (Sept 1774 – Oct 1774)

Often called the “father of our country,” the courageous Peyton Randolph led the charge against the Stamp Act as one of the most revolutionary Patriots. He also intitated the practice of prayer before conducting of government business.

In a letter to British General Thomas Cage, Randolph protests his occupation of Boston,

“Your Excellency cannot be a stranger to the sentiments of America with respect to the Acts of Parliament, under the execution of which those unhappy people are oppressed, the approbation universally expressed of their conduct, and the determined resolution of the Colonies, for the preservation of their common rights to unite in their opposition to those Acts. In consequence of these sentiments, they have appointed us the guardians of their rights and liberties…” [1]

Henry Middleton, South Carolina (October 1774)

Only serving four days, Middleton resigned in opposition to independence to Great Britian. He was succeeded in Congress by his son, Arthur Middleton (1742–1787), who was more radical than his father and became a signer of the Declaration of Independence.[2] Middleton’s first official act, was to execute a letter as President supporting the efforts of oppressed colonists. In the letter Middleton wrote,

“So rapidly violent and unjust has been the late conduct of the British Administration against the colonies, that either a base and slavish submission, under the loss of their ancient, just, and constitutional liberty, must quickly take place, or an adequate opposition be formed.” [3]

Second Continental Congress

John Hancock, Massachusetts (May 1775 – October 1777)

Hancock was President of the Congress when the Declaration of Independence was prepared. He was the first to sign what most men understood to be a note of their own death. The Declaration was received as treasonous by the British, making the signers traitors to the crown.

“In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgements….All confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness–and all created Power Vanity…” [4]

Henry Laurens, South Carolina (November  1777 – December 1778) (more…)

Read more

President Obama outlined plans Tuesday night at his State of the Union address. His speech was mostly the same old thing, continuing to play heavily on support for the middle class while proposing regressive taxes that directly attack middle class incomes. Unique to tonight’s speech was the presence of green ribbons worn on the lapels of guests and members of Congress. This green ribbon was meant to memorialize the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting. NPR commentators noted that the green ribbons were particularly important because of the President’s push for gun control legislation.  It was also noted that while Vice President Joe Biden was wearing a ribbon, Speaker of the House John Boehner was not.

What happened at Sandy Hook was a tragedy, and nothing should take away from our sympathy for the families who lost their loved ones. But at the same time, this sort of political manipulation because of a real tragedy is simply disgraceful. The ribbons and children they represent are being used as tools to bolster the President’s anti-2nd Amendment agenda.

The State of the Union address is a particularly troubling event. Thomas Jefferson stopped the practice of giving presidential speeches to Congress because he felt that it made the president out to be an imperial figure. He instead would send a written note about the current affairs of the country to those who needed it. The presentation this year makes it clear that it is only about political posturing. Members seek out aisle seats hours before the event, hopeful that they may get a picture hugging the president or shaking his hand, hoping to pander to the constituents who might be watching.

Many came adorned with green ribbons to hear lofty promises about how our President is going to put our nation back on track. It was very appropriate that all this posturing was represented with green. You may remember L. Frank Baum’s famous Emerald City of Green deception: Oz. Obama’s America is a new Oz.

“Even with eyes protected by the green spectacles, Dorothy and her friends were at first dazzled by the brilliancy of the wonderful City … There were many people – men, women, and children – walking about, and these were all dressed in green clothes and had greenish skins. They looked at Dorothy and her strangely assorted company with wondering eyes, and the children all ran away and hid behind their mothers when they saw the Lion; but no one spoke to them. Many shops stood in the street, and Dorothy saw that everything in them was green. Green candy and green pop corn were offered for sale, as well as green shoes, green hats, and green clothes of all sorts. At one place a man was selling green lemonade, and when the children bought it Dorothy could see that they paid for it with green pennies.”

And the new Oz has a new wizard, President Obama. A fool’s magician, yet  just as all  the good citizens of the Emerald City were forbidden to remove their green-tinted glasses, each American watches the state of the union through the comfort of a pair of their own colored glasses.

When will America discover that her President is no better than the false Wizard of Oz? Baum’s imperial ventriloquist is too much like our own head of state. What we need now is not more speeches from this talking head, but we need the brainless, the cowardly, the heartless, and those who are lost to break down the wizard’s chambers to discover the man behind the curtain and demand that he stop misleading the citizens. Back in Oz it went like this:

“You must keep your promises to us!” exclaimed Dorothy.
The Lion thought it might be as well to frighten the Wizard, so he gave a large, loud roar, which was so fierce and dreadful that Toto jumped away from him in alarm and tipped over the screen that stood in a corner. As it fell with a crash they looked that way, and the next moment all of them were filled with wonder. For they saw, standing in just the spot the screen had hidden, a little old man, with a bald head and a wrinkled face, who seemed to be as much surprised as they were. The Tin Woodman, raising his axe, rushed toward the little man and cried out, “Who are you?”
“I am Oz, the Great and Terrible,” said the little man, in a trembling voice. “But don’t strike me – please don’t – and I’ll do anything you want me to.”
Our friends looked at him in surprise and dismay.
“I thought Oz was a great Head,” said Dorothy.
“And I thought Oz was a lovely Lady,” said the Scarecrow.
“And I thought Oz was a terrible Beast,” said the Tin Woodman.
“And I thought Oz was a Ball of Fire,” exclaimed the Lion.
“No, you are all wrong,” said the little man meekly. “I have been making believe.”
“Making believe!” cried Dorothy. “Are you not a Great Wizard?”
“Hush, my dear,” he said. “Don’t speak so loud, or you will be overheard – and I should be ruined. I’m supposed to be a Great Wizard.”
“And aren’t you?” she asked.
“Not a bit of it, my dear; I’m just a common man.”
“You’re more than that,” said the Scarecrow, in a grieved tone; “you’re a humbug.”
“Exactly so!” declared the little man, rubbing his hands together as if it pleased him. “I am a humbug.”

One day we will realize that Obama, our Wizard, and the Government, our Oz, offer no solution to our needs. The true solutions are but “make believe.” The government exists at the expense of the Munchkins. Our presidential Wizard squanders the national wealth and starts unjust wars against foreign peoples who are not doing us any harm. It wrecks our families, tramples on our rights, invades our communities, and steals from our bank accounts. It skews the culture toward decadence and trash. It tells lie after lie. The president is not a powerful wizard, but a conniving liar who has tricked us into submission.

It is the obligation of every patriot to denounce the Obama humbug. The federal government has overstepped its boundaries, making promises it cannot keep. When will Americans awaken and realize that the president is not the magician he claims to be? He has no solutions for the economy, for crimes, for gun violence, for peace, for any of those things he campaigns for. The president, like the Wizard, is after one thing: expanding the power of his office and maintaining his great and powerful image. Once the wizard is exposed, the power is gone.

Let’s look behind the curtain, exposing the man behind the smoke and mirrors, sending him off in his own balloon full of the hot air he so much enjoys billowing.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a link is given.

<>download game javaконтент на заказ

Read more

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) National Executive Board will vote next week on whether to remove the ban on openly homosexual youth and adult leaders from its national membership policy. It will leave the issue for each individual Scouting unit to decide for itself. A vote on the matter by BSA is planned during an executive meeting in Irving, Texas, the first week of February.

I recently approached a California Boy Scout leader to ask his opinion.

Steve Macias: Some have asked if this is a repeat of what happened in the Girl Scouts where, “there are no membership policies on sexual preference.”

BSA Leader: I honestly do not know.  I’m concerned that the fix may already be in.  This ‘reconsideration’ was kept secret from the membership and chartering partners and only became public when someone in the national office leaked the news to the press.  It was just seven months ago that the BSA National Executive Board confirmed the prohibition on openly homosexual youth and adult leaders. So the proposed change in policy has taken everyone by surprise.

Steve Macias:  Is an alternative viable?

BSA Leader: It has already been done.  When the Girl Scouts of America succumbed to the dark side several years [ago], a group split off to form American Heritage Girls (AHG) and they have been growing slowly throughout the country.  AHG is based on biblical principles and has a partnership with the Boy Scouts.  They were one of the first sources to confirm that the Boy Scouts were being seduced by the dark side.

Steve Macias: Do you think other Boy Scout leaders would follow?

BSA Leader: Although it would be a challenge, it is possible to build an alternative organization.  The Boy Scouts have already established the model, which is half the battle.  The hard part is to get the churches behind it.  Many churches see Scouts as competition and not a complement to their own youth programs.  If the churches support such a movement, it can succeed.  But if they turn their backs as they so often do, then a new organization will have difficulty gaining traction.

Steve Macias: Should we as Christians consider leaving this organization?

BSA Leader: Regardless of what happens next week, I am not leaving the Boy Scouts.  I will stay and stand firm on my principles which happen to be the principles the Scouting movement was founded upon.  I will not run away or abandon ship.  I will stay and fight as long as I am able.  I am tired of surrendering ground. Unfortunately, this move is being driven by financial concerns.  I pray the BSA does not sell out its values for money and political and social acceptance.

There are two ways that you can express your opinion.  You can call (972) 580-2330 or you can send an email to nationsupportcenter@scouting.org.  Please take the time to voice your opinion on this issue at your earliest opportunity.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a link is given.<>рекламные агентства минска

Read more

Steve Macias Ludwig Von Mises” alt=” Steve Macias Ludwig Von Mises” src=”http://www.stevemacias.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/mises.jpg” height=”304″ width=”266″ /> Ludwig von Mises

Pastor David Chilton on Ludwig von Mises:

“To the horror of my Econ 101 professor, I did my first book report on this classic work by Mises. It was all done in innocence: I had simply gone to the library and picked it off the shelf, not realizing who the author was or the enormous threat he posed to the eminent instructor. I soon learned. Less than halfway through the course, I told the professor, “What you’re teaching isn’t just wrong. It’s dumb. ” Needless to say, I made about as many points with the teacher as he did with me. But the course wasn’t a total loss. I learned a lot about economics on my spare time, and in class i studied the inside track of logical fallacy.”

Isn’t Mises hard to read?

“Incidentally, this is probably the right place to deal with one of the greatest superstitions of economics today – the false rumor that Mises is hard to read. If you have trouble with this book, follow a simple rule, and all will be well. Pay attention! After all, if you can read a newspaper–Oh! Sorry, I didn’t know. Well, anyway, this new edition [Theory of Money and Credit] is so beautiful that it’ll look nice on your coffee table, and your friends will be impressed; and it will put you one-up on most economics professors, who don’t even own a copy.”

What is the best Mises book to read?

Apart from Mises’ Human Action, The Theory of Money and Credit is the treatise on economics. Most of the errors of modern economists are merely logical conclusions from a false notion of the nature and function of money; and it is in the interests of lawless governments to keep us deceived on that point, so that we will blame inflation on everyone but the true culprits. The Theory of Money and Credit will open your eyes.

Steve Macias” alt=”David Chilton Steve Macias” src=”http://www.stevemacias.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Chilton.jpg” height=”148″ width=”100″ />
Rev. Chilton (1951–1997) was a gifted Reformed pastor and author of several books on economics, eschatology and Christian Worldview from Placerville, California. In his book, Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators, Chilton demonstrates that “Christian Socialism” is simply a baptized humanism, the goal of which is not charity but raw police state power.

Follow Steve on Twitter @SteveMacias<>оставить бесплатное объявлениепродвижение ов seo раскрутка а отдел

Read more

President Barack Obama mocked Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Monday for his repeated attack over the size of the Navy, which he has said proves the president doesn’t prioritize national defense.

“You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets,” Obama said during the presidential debate. “We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

It is understandable why the President doesn’t like bayonets, he prefers the big guns. The Nobel Peace prize laureate has preferred to use drones in his barrage of unconstitutional wars. What good are bayonets and horses to a man who cowardly launches drones against third world countries, like the 254 drones against Pakistan. When the debate came down to how we will protect our military, the President said, “Neigh.” He continues to demonstrate his ineptitude as commander-in-chief.

Steve Macias” alt=”” src=”http://kuyperiancommentary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bayonet-copy.jpg?w=300″ height=”244″ width=”300″ />
This blog has been brought to you by the letter B. B for Bayonets.

Steve Macias Prolife Leader” alt=”” src=”http://kuyperiancommentary.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/steveorange.jpg?w=150″ height=”100″ width=”150″ />Steve is executive director of Cherish California’s Children and founder of the St. Anselm Leadership Institute. Steve and his Wife, Sarah, live in California’s gold country and are members of Church of the King Sacramento. Link to Steve’s blog, follow Steve on Twitter @SteveMacias<>цена на разработку араскрутка а 1с

Read more