The Black Robe Regiment
Peter Oliver was a lawyer and by the time of the Revolution had risen to the position of chief justice of the Superior Court in Massachusetts. He was incredibly wealthy and served in a variety of community and church positions and was fiercely loyal to the crown.
His perspective on the Revolutionary War was that of a Tory. Unlike the way in which most historians present John Adams and other such Patriots as noble statesmen, Oliver saw them as deluded troublemakers.
Not long after Cornwallis’ surrender, Oliver published a book entitled, “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View.” What makes his perspective valuable is that he has nothing to gain by glamorizing or exaggerating any one aspect of the American effort to win their independence, in that he views all of it as a form of sedition.
At one point, he sets aside an entire section of his text to describe the “Black Regiment.”
He begins by saying…
It may not be amiss, now, to reconnoitre Mr. Qtis’s black Regiment, the dissenting Clergy, who took so active a Part in the Rebellion.1
He elaborates on the “dissenting clergy” as flawed ministers, who according to Oliver, were ordained only because of a grave mistake having been made by the Governors of the Church of England. He identifies several men of the cloth including Jonas Clark, Dr. Charles Chaucy and others as being, not only members of the Regiment, but also extremely influential. He references two annual conferences that hosted pastors from all of the state and it was there that the “Black Regiment” was able to exert a substantial amount of influence in the name of rebellion and evil.
In this Town was an annual Convention of the Clergy of the Province, the Day after the Election of his Majestys Charter Council; and at those Meetings were settled the religious Affairs of the Province; & as the Boston Clergy were esteemed by the others as an Order of Deities, so they were greatly influenced by them. There was also another annual Meeting of the Clergy at Cambridge, on the Commencement for graduating the Scholars of Harvard College*, at these two Conventions, if much Good was effectuated, so there was much Evil. And some of the Boston Clergy, as they were capable of the Latter, so they missed no Opportunities of accomplishing their Purposes. Among those who were most distinguished of the Boston Clergy were Dr. Charles Chauncy, Dr. Jonathan Mayhew & Dr. Samuel Cooper?* & they distinguished theirselves in encouraging Seditions & Riots, until those lesser Offences were absorbed in Rebellion.2
You see Oliver’s “concern” reiterated on multiple occasions and in different ways.
For example, John Leach was imprisoned for sending to Patriot forces information pertaining to the disposition of British troops. He recorded some of his experiences while in prison in a Journal that’s preserved in the “New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865.”On June 30, he talks about a comment made by one of his British jailers…
June 30, 1775. Friday, Continued in the same confinement; and Saturday, Major harry Rooke took a Book of Religion from Mr Joseph Otis, the Gaol keeper, who told him the Book belonged to some of the Charlestown prisoners, taken at Bunker\’s Hill fight, and was given them by a Clergyman of the Town. He carried it to show General Gage, and then brought back, and said, “It is your G–d Damned Religion of this Country that ruins this Country; Damn your Religion.” I would only add this remark, that this Pious officer holds his commission by a Sacramental Injuection, from his most Sacred Majesty King George the 3d.3
You can also see the prominence of Christianity and even how certain denominations were regarded with a special sense of disdain by the British when you consider the diary of Thomas Hutchinson.
Thomas Hutchinson was the Governor over Massachusetts appointed by King George. He recorded a conversation he had with the monarch in July of 1774.
This would’ve been in the aftermath of “The Coercive (Intolerable) Acts of 1774” that were enacted as punishment for the Boston Tea Party. These were incendiary moves on the part on the part of King George that would result in galvanizing the colonies even further in their resolve to separate from England.
Among the things represented in the new legislation was the replacement of the Massachusetts Council with officials appointed by the crown rather than it being an elected body. You can hear King George questioning the way in which this new group of leaders was being received in the conversation he was having with his Governor.
He begins by asking what sort of doctrine is being preached in the colonies…
❶ Here is where King George is inquiring about the Massachusetts Council that used to be an elected body that has now been replaced with people who’ve been appointed by the crown.
❷ The “Dissenters from the Church of England,” in this context, refers to the Congregationalists who were loyal to the crown and had not repudiated the Church of England. These were the posterity of the early Pilgrims who had settled in the New World in the early seventeenth century.Lead by William Bradford in 1620, the Pilgrims, also called “Separatists,” were resolved to worship in a manner consistent with the Scriptures as opposed to the institutionalized church created by Henry VIII in order to secure a divorce the Pope was unwilling to grant him.
The Puritans were similar to the Separatists, but instead of wanting to break completely from the Church of England, they wanted to merely purify it. They arrived in the New World in 1630 and established the Massachusetts Bay Colony just south of Plymouth Rock.By the 18th century, the Puritans and the Pilgrims had combined to form the Congregationalists. But while they were now functioning under one denominational heading, you still had two distinct groups that were defined by their allegiance to the king.Published in 1907, “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution,” written by James H. Stark, references this dynamic.
The characteristics of the separate and independent governments of these two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant, non-persecuting, and loyal to the King, during the whole period of its seventy years\’ existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal, from the beginning, to the government from which it held its Charter, and sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of disaffection and hostility to the Royal government until they grew and ripened into the harvest of the American Revolution.5
This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why King George and his Governor could feel somewhat confident that they were drawing from an amicable group of people by defaulting to a specific “type” of Congregationalist. Doctrinally, they were not altogether consistent with the Anglican church, but they were at least somewhat sympathetic to their English Sovereign.
As far as Hutchinson’s reference to the Episcopalians, while they did not formally organize until 1780, during the period leading up to the Revolutionary War, they were considered the American version of the Church of England. While there were exceptions, an Episcopalian’s loyalty to the crown was more pronounced then their Congregationalist counterpart and certainly more intense than what you saw in the various sects that sprung up in the aftermath of the Great Awakening. You see this in the way many Episcopalians felt obliged to flee America after the Revolutionary War, including the Episcopalian minister referenced by Hutchinson in his conversation with King George.
In 1662, the Common Book of Prayer was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text.”
The fact that Hutchinson states that staffing the new Massachusetts Council with Episcopalians would’ve been “more disagreeable,” is indicative of the way ardent Patriots viewed Episcopalians with suspicion. Hence the choice of those coming from the Congregationalist group would be a more strategic option.
❸ To understand King George’s comment, you have to go back to the sixteenth century and look at the way in which the crown had exacted legislation that compelled a uniform approach to Christ that ultimately violated the Word of God.
Act of Uniformity
In 1558, Queen Elizabeth, as part of trying to eliminate the tensions between Catholicism and the Protestant mindset, she introduced legislation that dictated the way in which people were to pray and worship. It was called, “The Act of Uniformity” and it included a revised “Book of Common Prayer” which outlined how services were to be conducted as well as the verbiage of the prayers that were to be said everyday (click here to see the prayer that was to be repeated every morning). In addition, it made it a punishable offense to not attend Anglican services once a week.
In 1662, it was revised to include a mandate for all ministers to be ordained according to an Episcopal format and to “declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the text” (see sidebar). This resulted in over 2,000 ministers being ejected from their pastorate in what was called, “The Great Ejection. Many of those that were forcibly displaced were Presbyterians who made their way to the New World.
Thoroughly Protestant
While the Church of England represents a hybrid combination of both Protestant and Catholic doctrines, Presbyterians, on the hand, are thoroughly Protestant. From the perspective of the monarchy, they were positively toxic in part because of the way in which they recognized how the church was being manipulated by various sovereigns to perpetuate their power.
Elizabeth not unreasonably believed that the maintenance of the Episcopacy was necessary to the continuance of Royalty. She knew that the church of Geneva, which the Puritans declared to be their model, was not only essentially republican, but could not be perfectly established except in a republic...6
The Church of Geneva was founded in 1536 during the Protestant Reformation. It represented the central location of Protestant thought. As a Presbyterian, while you were not Puritanical in your doctrine, you nevertheless shared with some of your Puritan counterparts an unwillingness to allow a monarch to dictate your conscience in the way you worshipped, how you were to set up your church leadership or the way you ministered to others.
And while the Presbyterian denomination is a separate group of believers who subscribe to a particular set of doctrines, including, in some circles, a Calvinistic approach to predestination, in many instances when you hear an 18th century Englishman refer to a “Presbyterian,” it was a reference to anyone who recognized the discrepancy between engaging your faith according to a biblically based paradigm as opposed to a government imposed infrastructure.
This is where much of the real tension surfaced.
Church Government
In addition to the fact that all men are created equal (Gen1:26; Prov 2:22; Gal 3:28) thus invalidating the Divine Right of Kings, a large part of the Presbyterian doctrine pertained to church government. Churches were to be governed by elected elders not Anglican Bishops. By attempting to impose a crown appointed hierarchy to rule over the spiritual affairs of a Presbyterian who believed that leadership should be based on a biblically founded approach, England violated an Absolute documented in Scripture. As a result, Presbyterians were only too willing to oppose the established order and because of the presence they commanded in New England, the Revolution was often referred to as something inspired by a Presbyterian perspective.
Chief Instigators
You see this dynamic reflected in a pamphlet written by Joseph Galloway, who was a former speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly. He opposed the Revolution and fled to England. He believed that the Revolution was a religious quarrel instigated by Congregationalists and Presbyterians…
But they did not stop there: The principal matter recommended by the faction in New England, was a union of the congregational and presbyterian interests throughout the Colonies…Thus the Presbyterians in the southern colonies, who, while unconnected in their several congregations, were of little significance, were raised into weight and consequence; and a dangerous combination of men, whose principles of religion and polity were equally averse to those of the established Church and Government, was formed.7
Dr. Albert S. Bolles in his history of the Province and State of Pennsylvania from 1609 to 1790 reinforces that by elaborating on the enemy’s regard for Presbyterian clergy…
English Translation: “In this building formerly York Hotel on September 3, 1783 David Hartley, on behalf of the King of England, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Adams, on behalf of the United States of America, signed the Final Treaty of Peace recognizing the independence of the United States.”
To the Presbyterian clergy the enemy felt an especial anitpathy. There were accounted the ringleaders of the rebellion. For them there was often not so much safety in their own dwellings as in the camp. When their people were scattered, or if it was no longer safe to reside among them, the only atlernative was to flee or join the army, and this alternative was often presented. Not unfrequently the duty of the chaplain or the pastor exposed him to dangers as great as those which the common soldier was called to meet. There was risk of person, sometimes capture, and sometimes loss of life.8
David Hartley was Britain\’s Minister Plenipotentiary. He had full diplomatic powers and represented the crown when he signed the Treaty of Paris with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and several others in 1783. Hartley and Franklin were good friends and Hartley frequently spoke against the Revolution in Parliment. After Cornwallis\’ surrender at Yorktown, it was Hartley and Franklin that composed the Treaty of Paris.On February 3rd, 1779, Franklin responded to Hartley who had written a letter proposing that the United States end their alliance with France. At one point, he says:
The long, Steady, & kind regard you have shown for the Welfare of America, by the whole Tenour of your Conduct in Parliament, satisfies me, that this Proposition never took its Rise with you, but has been suggested from some other Quarter; and that your Excess of humanity, your Love of Peace, & your fears for us that the Destruction we are threatened with, will certainly be effected, have thrown a Mist before your Eyes, which hindred you from seeing the Malignity, and Mischief of it.— We know that your King hates whigs and Presbyterians; that he thirsts for our Blood; of which he has already drank large Draughts; that his servile imprincipled Ministers are ready to execute the wickedest of his Orders, and his venal Parliament equally ready to vote them just.9
Franklin doesn’t attempt any restraint or indulgence in describing King George or those members of Parliament who viewed America with disdain. The fact that he begins his description with the way in which King George hated Presbyterians demonstrates the way in which the monarchy associated the Revolution with a Christian perspective.
At the Highest Levels of Government
Members of Parliament were being informed from a variety of sources as to the nature of the American rebellion being founded on a religious premise.
Andrew Hamond was a captain in the British Navy. In a letter dated August 5, 1776, to Hans Stanley, a British Diplomat who sat in the House of Commons, he mentions that while there are some within the colonies who are loyal to the crown, there are nevertheless deep religious convictions running thoughout that, in some cases, are thoroughly determined to gain their independence:
It seems that they have long had divisions among them on religious accounts, and the Churchmen are clearly of opinion that it is the Presbyterians that have brought about this revolt, and aim at getting the government of America into their hands. 10
William Jones of Nayland was a distinguished theologian and a prolific writer. In 1776 he wrote an essay entitled, “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776” in which he addresses what he believes to be the principle driving force of the American Revolution:
And having nothing now to oppose but the Hanover family on the throne, they have at last taken up arms against that, and will carry on a war against the authority, the commerce, and the honour of this country, as long as they have the means of rebellion in their hands; for this has been a Presbyterian war from the beginning as certainly as that in 1641; and accordingly the first firing against that King’s troops was from a Masschusset meeting-house. 11
The Presbyterian was considered to be one of the chief instigators of the War for Independence, hence King George\’s comment to Hutchinson when he was asking if the Congregationalists being considered were of the Presbyterian stripe.
❹ The Presbyterian Church was started by John Knox in Scotland. It’s presence in the vocabulary being used by those in Parliament wasn’t so much a reference to doctrine as much as it was a referral to the way in which a biblically based argument was being used by “Presbyterians” to justify severing ties with England.
You see this explained by John Adams in a letter he wrote to Hezekiah Niles, who was the editor and publisher of the Niles’ Weekly Register from 1811-1836 and before that was the editor of the Baltimore Evening Post.
In his letter, Adams refers to Dr. Jonathan Mayhew who was one of the earliest ministers to object to the idea that it was a Christian’s duty to suffer beneath the administration of a tyrant. Rather, according to Mayhew, it was the Christian’s obligation to resist (“Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p39).
In addition to being an articulate speaker, Mayhew was also a prolific writer. At one point, he wrote a lengthy exposition entitled, “Conduct of the Society for Propagating the Gospels in Foreign Parts.” This was a rebuke directed towards the Church of England, who, under the auspices of witnessing to unchurched peoples, were using their charter to enforce an Anglican approach to one’s relationship with Christ and church government.
This was, again, an extension of the “Act of Uniformity” referenced earlier. Because it struck at the way in which the Church was to be set up according to a biblical model as opposed to a state sanctioned hierarch, the “Presbyterian” dynamic was considered by the Church of England to be a problem that needed to be rooted out.
Mayhew’s addresses this in Section XIV which is entitled, “That the Society have long had a formal design to root out Presbyterianism, &c. and to establishing both Episcopacy and Bishops in the colonies: In pursuance of which favorite project, they have in a great measure neglected the important ends of their institution.”
However this may or may not resonate as a serious issue in the mind of a 21st century layperson, in the eighteenth century when Christianity was more than just a token tradition, it had monumental ramifications which Adams explains…
If any Gentleman Supposes this Controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It Spread an Universal Alarm against the Authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just Apprehension that Bishops and Diocesses and Churches, and Priests and Tythes, were to be imposed upon Us by Parliament. It was known that neither King nor Ministry nor Archbishops could appoint Bishops in America without an Act of Parliament; and if Parliament could Tax Us they could establish the Church of England with all its Creeds, Articles, Tests, Ceremonies and Tythes, and prohibit all other Churches as Conventicles and Sepism Shops.12
What Adams is saying is that the Revolution was more than just an agitated populace wanting a more just representation in Parliament. The Church of England was using its politically based essence to impose the authority of English Rule on all things pertaining to church and beyond. In addition, it insisted than any other denomination was unlawful (Conventicles) and sick (Sepism Shops). And this included Presbyterians.
❺ Dr Henry Caner represents a great illustration of how certain Episcopalians were considered Tories because of their commitment to the Church of England. Like many of his Episcopal contemporaries, Caner felt compelled to leave the country and flee to England in order to avoid any fallout from having remained loyal to the crown (see sidebar). (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39316/39316-h/39316-h.htm#Footnote_70_70)
The bottom line is that “religion,” specifically Christianity, was not only the philosophical foundation upon which our Founders based their justification for separating from England, it was also the way in which a flawed approach to Scripture was being used by the Church of England to enforce a political agenda.
It was the American clergy during this time – the “Black Robe Regiment” – that placed these Realities before their engaged congregations and in so doing provided the needed resolve, endurance and courage to stand up against tyranny and defeat what was a fundamentally flawed approach to government.
1. “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View”, Internet Archive, https://archive.org/stream/originandprogres011156mbp/originandprogres011156mbp_djvu.txt, accessed April 12, 2023
2. Ibid
3. “The New England Historical and Genealogical Register for the Year 1865“, David Clapp and Son, Boston, MS, 1865, “A Journal Kept by John Leach, During His Confinement by the British, In Boston Gaol, in 1775″p 256
4. “The Diary and Letters of His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson: Captain-General and Governor in Chief of His Late Majesty\’s Province of Massachusetts Bay in North America”, S. Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, London, England, 1883-1886, p167-169
5. “The Loyalists of Massachusetts and the Other Side of the Revolution“, James H. Stark, W. B. Clarke Co, Boston, MA., 1807, p8
6. “Romantic Biography of the Age of Elizabeth: Or, Sketches of Life From the Bye-Ways of History“, Benedictine Brethren of Glendalogh, edited by William Cooke Taylor, LL.D. ETC, Richard Bentley, New Burlington Street, London, England, 1842, p82
7. “Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion”, Page 54. Joseph Galloway, London: G. Wilkie, 1780. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (81)
8. “Pennsylvania Province and State: A History from 1609 to 1790“, Albert S. Bolles, Ph.D., LL.D, John Wanamaker, Philadelphia, PA and New York, NY, 1899, p417
9. “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin”, “Letter in Answer to the Proposition of quitting the Alliance of France”, Vol 28 https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp, accessed April 14, 2023
10. “Naval Documents of the American Revolution“, Volume VI, edited by William James Morgan, Naval History Division, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., 1972, p 68
11. “An Address to the British Government on a Subject of Present Concern, 1776,” The Theological, Philosophical and Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. William Jones, 12 vols. (London, 1801), Vol. 12, p 356
12. “From John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, 13 February 1818”, “National Archives, Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6854, accessed April 22, 2023
Twenty Five Inconvenient Realities
The Separation of Church and State is a phrase often used by people who want to insist that Christianity had no real role in our nation’s founding – certainly nothing that had any significant influence on those that articulated our cause, created our Constitution and fought the battles that culminated in the surrender of Great Britain.
You see this in comments like what you see below from the “Freedom From Religion” website:
The Christian Right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States, as part of their campaign to force their religion on others who ask merely to be left alone. According to this Orwellian revision, the Founding Fathers of this country were pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.
Not true! The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments.
You have to be very selective in the information you use to validate such a statement. At the same time, you have to be willfully oblivious to the specific references to God and Christ that punctuate the relevant events and documentation that established the United States.
Below is a brief yet potent list: Read more
American Concrete
When it comes to the topic of our nation’s Christian heritage, you have two main schools of thought:
The liberal mindset that insists our forefathers viewed religion as something to be negotiated as an administrative duty
The Conservative Christian platform that maintains an aggressive acknowledgement and pursuit of God’s Assistance characterized the collective perspective of the founding fathers
Much of the controversy stems from a ruling given by the Supreme Court in 1947 and the way they interpreted a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in 1802. They declared that Jefferson’s usage of the term “the separation of church and state” constituted “the authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.1
Since then, that ruling has become the standard by which all public expressions of religious convictions have been measured, leading to an ever increasing limitation being put on the acknowledgement of God in governmental agencies as well as an ever lengthening shadow of doubt being cast on our nation’s religious heritage. The debate is, at times, passionate and you’ve got buffoons on both sides of the aisle. The venom and the inaccuracies can culminate in a spectacle that can make it difficult to know which argument is correct. But there is a bottom line that transcends the way in which a solitary statement can be potentially dissected to the point where its meaning becomes illusive. That bottom line is to consider, not only the comment that was made, but also:
- the context of that comment
- the character of the person speaking
- the cultural backdrop that made what that person said both relevant and influential
In other words, rather than just scrutinizing what was said, look at also why it was said, to whom was the person speaking and who was it that made the comment. At that point, you’ve got a full color, three dimensional rendering of what was stated as opposed to an intentionally cropped, black and white snapshot.
Using that kind of approach, let’s take a look at Thomas Jefferson and his exchange with the Danbury Baptists.
Jefferson’s Resume
Jefferson’s mental capacity and creativity went beyond mere academics. At the front door of his home, there’s a seven day clock that he designed. It’s counterweights hang on either side of the front entrance and extend through the floor. The height at which the counterweights hang indicate the days of the week that are written on the wall and beneath the floor. Monticello as a whole – the layout of the grounds and the structural design – all served as a testament to the creative intelligence and the intellectual ingenuity of their architect.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy was speaking at a dinner in the White House honoring all of the living recipients of the Nobel Prize. He said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has every been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”2
Thomas Jefferson was extraordinary. Prior to earning his license as a lawyer, he had earned his college degree from the College of William and Mary, having studied Mathematics, Philosophy, Metaphysics as well as French and Greek. It was there that he would also be introduced to the writings of John Locke, Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon – great thinkers that would shape his approach to politics and America’s quest for liberty.
After writing the Declaration of Independence, he returned to Virginia where he served in the Virginia State Legislature, eventually ascending to the position of Governor. His role in crafting the new state government was significant. For nearly three years he assisted in the construction of the state constitution. His most notable contribution was the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” – an accomplishment he had immortalized on his tombstone.
Jefferson was also very familiar with the Bible and the teachings of Christ. During his presidential years, he wrote a 46 page work entitled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”3 Moreover, he understood the necessary role the Christian doctrine played in the formulation of a government based on the Absolutes of Scripture as opposed to the machinations of men, be they manifested in the context of royalty or enlightened reason.
While he was convinced that the established clergy of the day were corrupt and the imposition of any one creed by a legislature was fundamentally flawed, it was the transcendent dynamic of the Christian doctrine upon which he founded his philosophical approach to freedom and sound government.
Jefferson’s Starting Point
It’s here where the liberal and conservative perspectives diverge. The liberal platform maintains that Jefferson’s usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was intended to purge any mention of God in an official context, be it the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of any Christian symbols during the Holidays , prayer in schools and the list goes on and on.
His previously stated comments pertaining to the Christian component of our nation’s government , the culture of the time and the audience he was addressing are all either diluted or dismissed in order to craft a liberal platform that presents America as a purely secular enterprise. Furthermore, there’s a philosophical starting point that Jefferson uses in the two documents he requested be immortalized on his tombstone that gets glossed over as though it has no real bearing on the issue. But if this is the cornerstone of his thought processes pertaining to religious freedom and liberty in general, this is a crucial piece of evidence that needs to be admitted as part of the conversation.
Take a look…
In both documents, he bases one’s right to liberty on the fact that God created man to be free.
The Declaration of Independence:
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…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…(emphasis added)
The opening statement of Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom:
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state.
Jefferson’s sense of reason, in terms of a man’s ability to worship and live as a free entity, was founded on the manner in which God had designed him. In other words, it was the doctrine of the church that gave shape and substance to the state. Remove the philosophical foundation of Scripture from Jefferson’s approach to liberty and you reduce the essence of our nation to a complaint rather than an Absolute. Furthermore, by insisting that there be no acknowledgement of the biblical paradigm that supports the ideological structure of our government, we invite the decay and corruption that inevitably accompanies the fallibility of a purely human enterprise.
Jefferson’s faith was unorthodox and his determination to avoid any appearance of officially sanctioning a particular denomination was nothing short of aggressive, but to twist his usage of the phrase “separation of church and state” into a quasi-legislative impetus to remove prayer from schools and strike the “one nation under God” phrase from the pledge of Allegiance, is to ignore the obvious cornerstone of Jefferson’s thought process. In addition, should the liberal perspective be embraced, you make Jefferson himself the “chief of sinners” in that he violates his own supposed conviction by invoking a overtly Christian dynamic in the very documents that define his perspective on the freedoms we enjoy.
Jefferson’s Audience
In addition to considering the background of Thomas Jefferson and his philosophical starting point when it came to the issue of religious liberty, one also needs to look at the society that Jefferson was addressing in the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists.
In 1776, the Declaration of Independence, in addition to proclaiming America’s resolve to separate itself from the authority of the crown, it also created a mandate for all states to create their own constitution. While many of the early settlers had left Old World in order to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, not everyone was dissatisfied with the Anglican Church. As a result, while the fabric of America’s religious culture was predominantly Protestant, it was nevertheless interwoven with a number of different denominations.
The Church of England was predominant in Virginia, in New England you had a blend of Congregationalists (an evolution of the original Puritans), Presbyterians and Quakers with a small percentage of other denominations scattered throughout the Northeast.
It’s imperative to realize that between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75-80 percent of the population attended churches which were being built at a headlong pace. When Thomas Jefferson became Vice President in 1797, the Second Great Awakening began and an abundance of revival meetings occurred throughout the country in a sustained pattern that would continue to the Civil War. So common was this anomaly that it was referred to as “the great absorbing theme of American life.”4 And part of what made the evangelical movement so potent was the way in which it was perceived as the best way in which to promote and preserve republican government.
Nineteenth century evangelical literature abounds with statements that could have been inspired by the religion section of Washington’s Farewell Address or copied from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780: “the religion of the Gospel is the rock on which civil liberty rests”; “civil liberty has ever been in proportion to the prevalence of pure Christianity”; “genuine Religion with all its moral influences, and all its awful sanctions, is the chief, if not the only security we can have, for the preservation of our free institutions”; “the doctrines of Protestant Christianity are the sure, nay, the only bulwark of civil freedom”; “Christianity is the conservator of all that is dear in civil liberty and human happiness.”5.
But while the message of preachers was being embraced as something that promoted the nation’s approach to liberty as well as the key to one’s eternal salvation, it didn’t resolve the tension that existed in many states, as far as the way certain state constitutions made religion – specifically the patronization of a specific denomination – compulsory.
In 1724, in the state of Connecticut, if you were a member of the Anglican church, you were required by law to pay a percentage of your income to the local Congregationalist church under penalty of imprisonment or seizure of goods.6 Up until 1818, the Congregational church was the established church of Connecticut which translated to a number of legislative tactics deployed for the expressed purpose of discouraging and harassing members of any “dissenting” denomination.7
In the year 1801, the Baptist churches that comprised the Danbury Baptist Association resolved to approach the newly elected President for the sake of soliciting from him a statement that would reinforce and further promote the idea of disestablishment – the elimination of government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities.8
Jefferson’s reply would be reprinted in publications across the nation.9 The effect of Jefferson’s letter is subjective in that it would be several years before Connecticut’s religious tone would be altered to the point where its constitution would be stripped of any legislative power to promote one denomination over another. Other states would follow suit over time, but the bottom lines is that in the early years of the nineteenth century, “religious freedom” wasn’t so much about discouraging public religious expressions as much as it was about eliminating that dynamic where you were legally obligated to attend and support a specific church.
It’s wise to pause for a moment and ponder the mindset of those who were reading Jefferson’s letter in 1802. While our currency today states that we trust in God, statistics reveal a collective disposition that is largely cynical of traditional Christianity.10 In a 2013 article written by Steve McSwain entitled “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore,” he cites some compelling stats that proclaim upwards of 80% of Americans are finding “more fulfilling things to do on the weekend” besides going to church.11 That’s not to say that some of these same people aren’t listed on the membership role of a local fellowship, but their commitment to God is casual at best.
This is an important dynamic to consider in that, to a nineteenth century citizen of the US, given the religious tenor of the nation as a whole, removing any and all references to Christ from the public arena was not something to be desired let alone considered. Christianity was regarded as both the foundation as well as the fuel for a moral society which, in turn, promoted a healthy republic.
Jefferson demonstrated that himself in his personal life as well as his public policies.12 “The Christian religion,” he wrote in 1801, when “brought to the original and simplicity of its benevolent institutor (Jesus Christ), is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty.”13 This is not the sentiment of a man determined to remove faith based gestures from the public arena. And while it wasn’t in Jefferson’s mind to eliminate the concrete of Christianity from America’s foundation, neither was it the ambition of the people he governed or the people who governed alongside him.
Jefferson’s Peers
To state that Jefferson’s was not the only signature on the Declaration of Independence nor was he the only voice that shaped our Constitution (Jefferson was in France when our Constitution was written, but he was nevertheless influential through his correspondence) is to rehearse the obvious. Yet, when you consider the weight given to a single phrase made in a letter that, while politically strategic, had no legislative power, it’s difficult not to feel as though Jefferson’s correspondence with the Danbury Baptists is the only piece of evidence being admitted into the courtroom.
When you consider the other personalities and their respective statements along with their voting record, the resulting dynamic isn’t so much something that isolates Jefferson’s statement to the Danbury Association as unique as much as it brings into focus what he truly intended.
The First Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention were the legislative bodies that crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution respectively. There were 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence and 55 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787. With no more than five exceptions, the members of the Constitutional Convention were all orthodox members of an established Christian denomination.14 The signatures on the Declaration of Independence boasts a similar enumeration of men who vocally volunteered their commitment to Christ with little hesitation. Following the death of Richard Henry Lee (President of the Continental Congress and the man who officially introduced in Congress the call for America’s independence), his papers and correspondence, including numerous original handwritten letters from patriots (e.g., George Washington, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, etc.), were passed on to his grandson who compiled those documents into a two-volume work published in 1825. After having studied those personal letters, the grandson described the great body of men who founded the nation in these words:
“The wise and great men of those days were not ashamed publicly to confess the name of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! In behalf of the people, as their representatives and rulers, they acknowledged the sublime doctrine of his mediation.”15
The reason the American experiment succeeded is because it was based on the Absolutes in Scripture that pertained to the way in which man was created to think and live as a free enterprise.
Political theory and personal preferences can be debated to the point where legislative conclusions are determined more so by charisma and compelling rhetoric than the substance of the truths being considered. Our Founding Fathers knew that and for that reason chose to bring their collective pursuit of liberty beneath the umbrella of Biblical Truth.
Within their ranks you had different degrees of orthodoxy as well as a variety of individual perspectives on issues such as slavery and those that were fit for positions of political leadership. But they all believed that man was “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable human rights” and it was that consensus that allowed them the opportunity to come together as a unified legislative body and proclaim the freedom of those they represented to King George and to the world.
In Conclusion
Pop Quiz…
Question #1: How often from June 12, 1775 till August 3rd, 1784 did Congress proclaim a National Day of either Fasting or Thanksgiving?
Answer: 18 times. Twice a year – once in March and once in October.16
Question #2: The following statement is inscribed on the Liberty Bell: “Proclaim Liberty thro’ all the Land to all the Inhabitants thereof.” What text is that taken from?
Answer: Leviticus 25:10
Question #3: What President attended church services every Sunday during his administration, approved the use of the War Office as well as the Office of the Treasury for religious services and also approved the use of the Marine Band to provide instrumental accompaniment for the religious services going on within those government facilities?
Answer: Thomas Jefferson17
Question #4: Who, more than any other single person, is pictured in various locations throughout Capitol Hill? Answer:
Moses18
Question #5: Above the figure that represents Science in the Library of Congress, there is an inscription. What is that inscription?
Answer: Psalm 19:1 (The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork [Psalm 19:1])
: Who stated the following: “… it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
a) Billy Graham
b) George Washington
c) George W. Bush
d) Charles Spurgeon
Answer: George Washington (proclamation October 3, 1789)
Question #7: It was on April 22, 1864 that Congress resolved to institute the phrase, “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Where did they get that phrase from?
Answer: The third verse of our national anthem:
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”19
“The Light of Truth” painting depicting truth slaying the dragon of ignorance. Four sets of cherubs are featured featuring the four elements of sound law: the square, the plumb, the level and the Bible.
The “separation of church and state” phrase can not be accurately utilized as a legal foundation upon which to build legislative mandates to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace. When one pauses long enough to objectively evaluate the whole of Jefferson’s political regard for Christianity, the collective disposition towards religion that belonged to his peer group and the esteem for Christ that characterized the people he governed, to arrive at such a conclusion is nothing less than an irresponsible interpretation of the facts.
Yet, regardless of substantive the argument may be – that the 1947 interpretation of Jefferson’s phrase was altogether wrong – there are other forces at play that make this debate more than just an intellectual joust. The fact that no one balked when Washington so vigorously asserted a Christian dynamic in his farewell address or no one objected to Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson crafting the preface to the Bibles that were distributed to soldiers being deployed to Europe during WWI is because the religious tenor of nation as a whole was far more healthy.
The Light of Truth is a painting that’s featured on the ceiling of the Members of Congress Reading Room in the Jefferson building which was opened in 1897. The artist, Carl Gutherz, pictures four sets of cherubs to represent four tools that are needed to fashion law that is accurate and sound: the plumb, the square, the level and the Bible. The governmental patrons that commissioned the work of Gutherz were no more concerned about his art constituting a violation of the Establishment Cause then were the members of congress who took the time to read the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as they were reprinted on the inside cover of those Bibles that were distributed to servicemen during World War II.
Again, America in the 1940’s is revealed as being a nation that was collectively embracing the Truth of God, rather than dismissing it as antiquated and limiting. The fundamental essence of our corporate perspective on the First Amendment is defined by our national regard for Christ. It’s not a legal discussion only as much as it’s a reflection of who we are spiritually. If we are to thrive and not just endure as a nation, it’s not a debate that needs to be won as much as it’s a revival that needs to occur.
Traditionally, it’s only in times of crisis when our collective knees bow in worship and the indignation of those who want to remove Christian symbols from the marketplace is processed as an obstacle to the common good rather than a catalyst. If we are to enjoy the advantages that go along with being reverent without having to be alerted to our spiritual lethargy by something dramatic, then it’s only common sense to focus on what’s True and labor to influence those on the peripheral in that direction.
Again, it’s not our history that needs to be revisited, it’s our God that needs to be lifted up (Jn 12:32). Only then do our backgrounds and varying convictions blend together in a way that is Truly strong and enduring. Only then does our spiritual heritage come into focus in a way that is not tainted by a worldly desire to distance ourselves from the Author of our freedoms. Only then is our foundation set in the concrete that is truly American as opposed to the shifting sands of cultural whims and academic trends.
1. Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p92
2. “John F. Kennedy: Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Peace Winners of the Western Hemisphere”, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8623, accessed November 2, 2015
3. “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power”, John Meacham, Random House, New York, NY, 2012, p471
4. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p99
5. Ibid, p109
6. “Connecticut in Transition, 1775-1818”, Richard Joseph Purcell, American Historical Association, 1918, p47
7. Among the laws that the Congregational Church used to make life difficult for dissenters was a “certificate law,” that compelled you to verify your church attendance and the regularity of your tithe via a certificate. Obtaining this certificate could be challenging in that, at one point during the life of this law, the certificate had to be signed by two civil officers or a justice of the peace. Since many of the the civil officers in place were Congregationalists, getting their signature was not accomplished without having to endure a significant amount of harassment and discouragement. For more reading on this subject, refer to “The Connecticut State Constitution”, Wesley W. Horton, Oxford University Press, 2012, p10
8. In an October 7, 1801, letter to then-president Jefferson, the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists expressed concerns that the Congregationalist-dominated establishment / government in Connecticut might successfully stifle dissenting sects – theirs in particular. The letter carried the Danbury Baptists’ plea for Jefferson’s assistance, or at least the lending of Jefferson’s presidential stature, to thwart establishment-driven, government-sanctioned discrimination against religious minorities. “Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History”, Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, Louisiana, 2008, p176
9. “Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State”, New York University Press, NY, 2002, p47 (https://play.google.com/books/reader?printsec=frontcover&output=reader&id=aSg20UE2DHgC&pg=GBS.PT42.w.1.0.45.0.1, accessed Nov 17, 2015)
10. Twenty-eight percent of Americans believe the Bible is the actual word of God and that it should be taken literally. This is somewhat below the 38% to 40% seen in the late 1970s, and near the all-time low of 27% reached in 2001 and 2009. “Gallup”, “Three in Four Still See the Bible as the Word of God”, http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx, accessed November 7, 2015
11. “Huffington Post”, “Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore”, Steve McSwain, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mcswain/why-nobody-wants-to-go-to_b_4086016.html, accessed November 7, 2015
12. Jefferson regularly attended church services in the hall of the House of Representatives. In addition, he allowed church services to be held in several federal buildings throughout the capitol on Sundays. Dr. James Hutson, in his book “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” states “It is no exaggeration to say that, on Sundays in Washington during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the state became the church.” “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p91
13. Ibid, p84
14. “Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution”, M.E. Bradford, 1994, University Press of Kansas, p xvi (http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Framers-Constitution-Revised/dp/0700606572/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449433424&sr=1-1#reader_0700606572) see also http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qtable.htm)
15. “Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution & Religion”, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, Aldedo, TX, 2010, 152
16. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, Dr. James H. Hutson, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1998, p53
17. Ibid, p91
18. “One Nation Under God”, Eugene F. Hemrick, Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Indiana, 2001, p49
19. “A Nation Under God? The ACLU and Religion in American Politics”, Thomas L. Kranawitter, David C. Palm, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Oxford, UK, 2006, p39
President Trump: Convicted Felon or Political Target
Imagine buying a printer and documenting it as a business expense.
Perfectly legal.
But pretend for a moment that instead of buying a printer, you bought heroin. Now, not only are you breaking the law by purchasing illegal drugs, but you’re also committing a crime in the way you reported it as “something for the office.”
If instead of buying a printer, you bought an ice cream cone, you’ve got a “falsified business expense,” but that’s not necessarily a problem. What makes it criminal is the crime being concealed by documenting the expense as something legitimate.
If someone is going to accuse you of committing a felony because of a falsified business expense, they have to prove to the jury that you’re guilty of committing a crime that was funded by the money you reported as a legal transaction. In the case of our example, the purchase of heroin.
But if you bought ice cream, that’s not illegal and however you accounted for it is not a felony and…
…they don’t have a case.
These are the 34 “felonies” that President Trump was charged with:
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust | 2/14/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457 | 2/14/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460 | 2/14/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000138 | 2/14/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust | 3/16/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 846907 | 3/17/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000147 | 3/17/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 4/13/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 5/22/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 855331 | 5/22/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002700 | 5/23/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 6/16/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858770 | 6/19/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002740 | 6/19/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858772 | 6/9/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002741 | 6/19/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 7/11/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 861096 | 7/11/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002781 | 7/11/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 8/1/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 863641 | 8/1/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002821 | 8/1/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 9/11/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 868174 | 9/11/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002908 | 9/12/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 10/18/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 872654 | 10/18/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002944 | 10/18/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 11/20/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 876511 | 11/20/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002980 | 11/21/17 |
| Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump | 12/1/17 |
| Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 877785 | 12/1/17 |
| Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 003006 | 12/1/17 |
These were all identified by the prosecution as falsified business records.
34 falsified business records, 34 felonies.
But remember, in order for a falsified business record to quality as a felony, it has to be proven that the money was intentionally categorized to conceal the fact that the law had been broken.
An excerpt from Manhattan prosecutors’ bill of particulars in the Donald Trump hush-money case referenced in the “Old, unused, and ‘twisty’ — meet the obscure NY election-conspiracy law that just might get Trump convicted” article printed in the Business Insider, April 27, 2024.
But what was the crime?
You can’t tell by looking at the business records, apart from the name, “Michael Cohen.”
In 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s lawyer, cut a check to Stormy Daniels in exchange for her discretion when it came to her relationship to Donald Trump, given its sordid characteristics that occurred in 2006. That same check was later categorized as an illegal contribution to Trump’s presidential campaign and Cohen wound up serving three years in prison.1
Later, however, it was alleged that Trump tried to reimburse Cohen for the money paid out to Daniels and used a series of falsified business records in order to conceal the true nature of the payment made to the former porn star. In doing so, at least one of three crimes were committed (see sidebar):2
- Violation of State Election Law
- Tax Fraud
- Federal Election Law
But you can’t simply list 34 transactions and call them 34 felonies. You have to prove that every one of those line items was intentionally mis-categorized in order to conceal a violation of either State Election Law, New York Tax Law, or Federal Election Law.
It looks like this:
But at each stage of the prosecution’s case, you have some toxic flaws that neither the judge, nor the jury, nor the prosecuting attorney’s seemed willing to acknowledge.
Let’s take a look…
Here’s the problem…
Washington Examiner reporter, Byron York, explains:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying bookkeeping records of a nondisclosure payment in order to commit or conceal another crime, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what that other crime is. It’s really the key to the whole case. Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this matter. The fact that we — and that includes the defendant — still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the great injustices of a felony prosecution that never should have happened…[Bragg’s] theory is that if Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to keep her from going public with her story that she and Trump had a sexual encounter and then Trump repaid Cohen in 2017, then that was a campaign contribution and should have been reported to the FEC. The payments were made “for the purpose of influencing any election,” the theory continues, and the Trump campaign should have filed a document with the FEC listing among its campaign contributions and expenditures that it received and spent $130,000 for “hush money.”
If you think that sounds a little odd for an FEC disclosure, you’re right. That’s where one of the critical witnesses to be called by the Trump defense comes in. Bradley Smith is a former chairman of the FEC, and on many occasions, including long before Trump, he has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as “for the purpose of influencing any election.” … Smith, having headed the FEC, has many examples from the commission’s enforcement of federal election law that illustrate his point. He knows what he is talking about, and it seems clear that his expert opinion is that paying off Daniels, no matter what one might think of it, is not a campaign expenditure or donation that FECA requires a candidate to disclose. The Trump defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has any personal knowledge of the Trump transaction but because he understands, and has enforced, the campaign law that Bragg’s prosecutors appear to be planning to use against Trump. But Merchan has forbidden Smith from testifying about most of the issues involved in the case.3
Everything about the prosecution’s case requires the money paid to Stormy Daniels by categorized as illegal in the context of Election Law. If the priority is a fair trial, it only makes sense that you would seek out the clarity provided by someone who can speak with authority as to whether or not Trump did, in fact, break the law from the standpoint of the FEC.
Bradley Smith is that authority and Bradley Smith was forbidden by Judge Merchan to provide that clarity.
Jonathan Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School and has testified in United States congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues. Since the 1990s, Turley has been a legal analyst for several major news networks and is currently a legal analyst with Fox News. He said this about the prosecution’s closing argument made by Joshua Steinglass:
Steinglass just said that it is a fact that these were campaign violations. Nothing from the judge and nothing for the defense. This jury has now been told dozens of times that the payments were campaign violations and the Judge is letting that false claim stand uncontradicted…He literally said that Trump lied in denying that these were campaign contributions because they were in fact such violations. Merchan is treating this all as argument. However, Steinglass is making a statement of law that is contradicted by a wide variety of experts.4
Among the “wide variety of experts” that Turley is referring to is Bradley Smith, whose testimony would’ve prevented Steinglass from invoking the discredited assumption that Trump had violated Election Law as an established fact (see “What an Expert Witness For Trump’s’ Defense Would Have Told Jurors if He Hadn’t Been Muzzled by the Judge” sidebar).
It’s as though the court wasn’t really looking for the truth as much as it was looking for an excuse to find Trump guilty.
Here’s the problem…
The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) had closed its investigation into whether former President Trump illegally made hush money payments to women prior to the 2016 election.
The FEC voted 4-1 to close the inquiry after failing to find that Trump or his campaign “knowingly and willfully” violated campaign finance law when his former attorney Michael Cohen paid $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from disclosing an alleged affair.5
The FEC declared President Trump innocent of any wrongdoing involving his payment to Stormy Daniels in 2021. Yet, the State of New York decided to ignore that verdict and attempted to charge him with the same crime in 2024.
Another weakness in the prosecution’s case is the fact that President Trump’s alleged violation happened six years ago – a full year beyond the state’s statute of limitations. While a provision was made to extend that timeframe, given the way courts were disrupted by COVID-19, the fact that under any other circumstance, the prosecution’s case would never have made it to trial.
Bear in mind that a falsified business record is a misdemeanor. In order for it to be classified as a felony, the prosecution had to allege that the money was intentionally misrepresented in order to conceal another crime. But not only did that misdemeanor have to be linked to another crime in order for it to qualify as a felony, it had to be asserted as a felony in order for an exception to the statute of limitations to apply.
Here’s the problem…
Again, in order for the 34 counts of falsified business records to resonate as felonies, it has to be proven that they were falsely documented in order to conceal another crime. The prosecution asserted that one of the three possible crimes was a violation of New York State Law Section 17-152 which refers to a “Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.” It goes on to say that, “Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”6
At one point, Judge Merchan elaborated by saying, “Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.”7
The problem, however, is that the state has no jurisdiction when it comes to Federal elections. In other words, if the FEC declares that the money paid by President Trump to Michael Cohen was not in violation of the law, that ruling supersedes and preempts any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.8
Judge Merchan and the prosecution were completely wrong in making a violation of State Election Law as part of the trial because Federal Law renders any attempt on the part of the state to override a Federal ruling a moot point.
Here’s the problem…
In his legal review, Professor Gregory Germain elaborated on the issue of tax fraud as presented by the prosecution:
Early in the case, the District Attorney suggested that Trump might have been disguising the payments to commit tax fraud. But the DA introduced no evidence to support that claim. Trump asked Judge Merchan to prevent the District Attorney from arguing the tax fraud point. The District Attorney argued that falsifying the payment as income to Cohen rather than a reimbursement was a “tax law violation,” but Trump pointed out that there is no evidence that anyone received a tax benefit from the characterization. The court did not rule on the issue.9
So, however “tax fraud” might’ve been documented in the prosecution’s “Bill of Particulars,” it was never proven let alone discussed.
Here’s the problem…
N.Y. Election Law § 17-152 states, “any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means … shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” This crime has two elements:
- To be guilty, a jury must find the accused: (1) conspired to affect an election; and (2) committed another act by “unlawful means” in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- A jury must agree unanimously on the acts constituting elements of a crime. (See U.S. v. Gotti, 451 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The jury must be unanimous not only that at least two [predicate] acts were proved, but must be unanimous as to each of two predicate acts.”); U.S. v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 224 (2d Cir. 2005) (“The jury must find that the prosecution proved each one of those two … specifically alleged predicate acts beyond a reasonable doubt.”).)10
A jury can’t declare someone to be guilty without being unanimous. Despite that being a known precedent, Judge Merchan told jurors, in his verbal instructions to the jury, “Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.11”
While it may sound like the Judge is insisting on a consensus, he simultaneously makes it clear that the jury doesn’t have to be unanimous in which of the three possible manifestations of “unlawful means” were actually committed. Not only is that a gross violation of legal precedent, it’s also a violation of President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right which says that all those accused of a crime have the right to “be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”12
At every level of this trial, you have a corrupted manipulation of the law…
- The Hush Money paid to Stormy Daniels did not have to be filed as a campaign expenditure
- There was no violation of Federal Election Law.
- The State has no jurisdiction over Federal Elections.
- There was no evidence of Tax Fraud
- Jury didn’t have to be unanimous on what crime was committed
In addition…
- The jury pool is coming from a county that consists of 663,000 registered Democrats as opposed to 66,000 Republicans.13
- A key witness for the defense was not allowed to testify
- Prosecution’s star witness confessed to lying under oath
- Given Merchan’s political activity as well as his daughter being formally questioned by Congress as to how she stands to benefit financially by Trump’s indictment and defeat (see sidebar), his bias makes his refusal to recuse himself a potential violation of New York State Law standards for recusal which state that judges may not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity.”16 The rules further state, “A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”17
What Was Donald Trump’s Crime? Liberals have a hard time in saying what Trump was guilty of.
Finally, Michael Colangelo was President Joe Biden’s third-highest-ranking Department of Justice official. He quit to join the Manhattan office investigating Donald Trump on November 18, 2022 – only three days after Trump announced his 2024 run and the same day Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith, and White House attorneys met for eight-hours with Nathan Wade. Colangelo’s association with the case and his nonsensical departure from his prestigious position makes it all the more logical to assume that the Biden White House was instrumental in ensuring that the case against President Trump had the look and feel of something legitimate.
It’s especially suspicious, given the way that Alvin Bragg was apparently reluctant to prosecute President Trump up until Colangelo joining the effort. He was so instrumental in building the case, he actually presented the opening arguments.18
Depending on the media you consume, it’s easy to believe that President Trump was found guilty on 34 felony convictions including what you see above. The problem with the headlines is that they rarely communicate the bottom lines that define the legal substance of, not just the allegations, but even the court proceedings that handed down a guilty verdict.
According to legal experts, Merchan’s standards for a conviction are abnormal. Not only were his instructions vague and illegal, but the prosecution never really made its point. Turley, who was been inside the courtroom, writes. “The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation. This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime.”19
Alan Dershowitz was a Democrat up until September of 2024. Prior to that, he supported Hillary Clinton and represented several high profile clients in their legal struggles.
He had a chance to be in the courtroom when Judge Merchan cleared everyone out in order to rebuke Robert Costello. From the perspective of Dershowitz, it was more than inappropriate…
Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.
The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.
Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant.
The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists.
But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom.
I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind to observe his deep failings.20
He goes on to observe how, because the trial wasn’t televised, the only perspective on what happened inside the courtroom was going to be coming from media types, many of who were just as biased as Judge Merchan.
He concludes his observations with a fitting statement that captures everything that falls into the category of the way in which President Trump was not found guilty as a convicted felon as much as he was put on trial as a political target…
“The American public is the loser.”21
1. “Stormy Daniels – Donald Trump Scandal”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal, accessed January 31, 2025
2. The excerpt from Manhattan prosecutors “Bill of Particulars” references four crimes. However, only three were referenced by Judge Merchan in his instructions to the jury. The fourth one is State Penal Law 175.05 and refers to falsifying business records and is classified as a misdemeanor. It may be that this was considered both obvious and redundant and for that reason, wasn’t referenced by Judge Merchan.
3. “When the judge gags a key witness for Trump’s defense”, Washington Examiner, Byron York, May 6, 2024, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/2993414/when-the-judge-gags-a-key-witness-for-trumps-defense/, accessed February 22, 2025
3. “Why Is the Judge in Trump’s New York Trial Muzzling a Key Defense Witness?”, “Townhall”, Guy Benson, 5/8/2024, https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2024/05/08/why-is-the-judge-in-trumps-new-york-trump-trial-muzzling-a-witness-for-the-defense-n2638747, accessed February 3, 2024
4. Jonathan Turley, https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1795582312073101372, accessed February 1, 2025
5. “FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments”, Jordan Williams, 05/06/21, “The Hill”, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552271-fec-drops-investigation-into-trump-hush-money-payments/, accessed February 4, 2025
6. “The New York State Senate”, “SECTION 17-152 | Conspiracy to promote or prevent election”, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152, accessed February 22, 2025
7. “What is the New York election law at the center of Trump’s hush money trial?”, ABC News, Ivan Pereira and Peter Charalambous, May 30, 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-york-election-law-center-trumps-hush-money/story?id=110678995, accessed February 22, 2025
8. Office of the Law Revision Counsel, United States Code, §30143. State laws affected, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title52-section30143&num=0&edition=prelim, accessed February 22, 2025
9. Syracuse University, College of Law, “Professor Gregory Germain writes: The Most Important Part of Trump’s Hush Money Case begins Next Week”, Professor Gregory Germain, May 22, 2024, https://law.syracuse.edu/news/professor-gregory-germain-writes-the-most-important-part-of-trumps-hush-money-case-begins-next-week/, accessed February 22, 2025
10. America First Legal, “Legal Errors in the New York Prosecution of President Trump Jury Unanimity”, https://media.aflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/01181702/Merged-One-Pagers.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
11. New York State Unified Court System, “Post Summation Instructions”, https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
12. Constitution Annotated, Sixth Amendment, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/, accessed February 22, 2025
13. “Election by County”, “New York State Board of Elections”, https://elections.ny.gov/enrollment-county, accessed February 1, 2025
14.Federal Election Contribution, Individual Contributions, https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=juan+merchan&contributor_occupation=judge&two_year_transaction_period=2020, accessed February 22, 2025
15. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, “Letter to Ms. Lauren Merchan”, https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-08-01%20JDJ%20to%20L.%20Merchan%20re%20Authentic%20Campaigns.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
16. Cornell Law School, “N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 § 100.5 – A judge or candidate for elective judicial office shall refrain from inappropriate political activity”, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/22-NYCRR-100.5, accessed February 25, 2025
17. Casetext, “N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 100.2”, https://casetext.com/regulation/new-york-codes-rules-and-regulations/title-22-judiciary/subtitle-a-judicial-administration/chapter-i-standards-and-administrative-policies/subchapter-c-rules-of-the-chief-administrator-of-the-courts/part-100-judicial-conduct/section-1002-a-judge-shall-avoid-impropriety-and-the-appearance-of-impropriety-in-all-of-the-judges-activities, accessed February 22, 2025
18. Congress.gov, “Biden’s #3 Man at DOJ Resigned to Join Alvin Bragg’s‘Get Trump’Team on November 18,2022”, Bradley Jaye, JUne 12, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117426/documents/HHRG-118-JU00-20240613-SD012-U12.pdf, accessed February 22, 2025
19. Jonathan Turley, “The Closing: Trump’s Final Argument Must Bring Clarity to the Chaos in Merchan’s Courtroom”, Jonathan Turley, May 28, 2024,
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/28/the-closing-trumps-final-argument-must-be-clarity-to-chaos-in-merchans-courtroom/, accessed February 22, 2025
20. New York Post, “I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, and what I saw shocked me”, Alan Dershowitz, May 21, 2024, https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/, accessed February 22, 2025
21. Ibid
See also…
Judge limits scope of testimony from Trump’s planned expert witness
Legal Errors in the New York Prosecution Against President Trump
Why Does it Have to be so Difficult?
I was looking at the story about how the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea. It was a timely devotion because of the way my bride and I were rehearsing some challenges yesterday.
In the chapters leading up to the exodus, God had demonstrated His Reality in the context of several miraculous signs that were so compelling, that no one in Egypt doubted the superiority of Israel’s God. After the Passover, Pharaoh couldn’t wait to send the Israelites on their way. This wasn’t just an example of brilliant statesmanship on the part of Moses, or a series of unfortunate events that coincidentally promoted the idea of granting Israel their independence. This was the miraculous Power of God in full display and what was an impossible situation, as far as the Hebrews being subject to the most powerful empire on earth with no hope of ever being free from a life of bondage, were now leaving in the context of a total and complete victory over their former taskmasters.
But then, Pharaoh changes his mind and he goes after the Israelites. He corners them against the Red Sea and there’s nothing the Hebrews can do but just wait for Pharaoh’s chariots and spears to end their lives.
But then, God parts the Red Sea and before it’s all over, Israel will, once again, see God doing what only He can do with the result being total and complete victory.
But before the waters parted, the Hebrews go up to Moses and, rather than calmly asking that he approach the Lord and ask for some help, they are terrified and wonder out loud if the whole purpose of leaving Egypt was to simply be killed in the desert.
When Moses approaches God, the Lord responds by asking him, “Why are you crying out to me?” (Ex 14:15)
The commentary on this verse is pretty minimal. But I hear it as God asking Moses, why are you freaking out?
Perhaps that’s not the most scholarly approach. Moses wasn’t necessarily terrified, but I can’t help but think that God was pointing back to the last several months of signs and wonders and asking Israel through His conversation with Moses, “Why are you so forgetful? Do you not remember all of what’s happened recently? Do you think that I’m somehow perplexed by what’s going on now?”
We know how the story ends. The Red Sea parts, Pharaoh’s army is destroyed and Israel can’t stop cheering.
But in the very next chapter, the nation of Israel is out of water and they’re in the desert and they…
…grumble (Ex 15:24)
Here’s where I have a question.
Why is it that the Red Sea couldn’t be the last round of major obstacles. You come within a heartbeat of being totally destroyed by Pharaoh’s army, you’ve got Pharaoh in front of you, the sea behind you, you’ve got nowhere to run, there’s nothing you can do and then, God delivers you and…
…cue music, the Israelites ride off into the sunset to the Promised Land and the lights come up.
Happy Ending!
But it’s one round of major problems after another. Chapter 14, Pharaoh’s army is holding a knife to your throat. Chapter 15, you run out of water. Chapter 16, you run out of food. Chapter 17 you run out of water again and you get attacked by the Amalekites.
Why does God allow so much adversity? It’s like with every problem that gets solved, suddenly you’re looking at something else that seems even worse.
It doesn’t take much to get to a place where you feel like nothing ever really gets done. No matter how many times you cry out to the Lord, it’s like there’s nothing there and you’re just engaging in what amounts to a pointless exercise that does nothing more than give you a false sense of encouragement.
But then, after the dust settles, you realize, after looking back, that some things have changed. You’re compelled to revisit some major breakthroughs and resolutions that, at the time, were major headlines in your life and you were thanking God and celebrating His Reality!
Perhaps, it’s healthy to imagine God asking you in your moment of need, “Why are you crying out to me?”
“Have you forgotten all that I’ve done?”
“Do you remember the empty tomb?”
“Have you forgotten Who I am?”
No. No, Lord. I’ve not forgotten and You’re right. I need to take a breath and be mindful of, now just what You’ve done, but Who it is I’m talking to.
But why can we not just take care of “this” once and for all? Why do I feel compelled to come back to You with a different scenario, but, more often than not, the same problem?
Why did You let the Israelites go thirsty? Why do You let them go hungry? Yes, You provided for them, but not before they got to a place where they were desperate. Why does it have to get to a place where people are hurting before You move?
Maybe it’s because no one is asking God for help until they’ve exhausted all their resources and they’re compelled to remember, “…from whence cometh my help.” (Ps 121:1)
Or perhaps it’s because it’s only when you’re having to exercise the muscle of genuine faith, that muscle actually grows.
JD Walt in his devotional, “The Gift of Thirst,” has a great little take on this when he says…
Something about thirst creates desperation. Something about desperation focuses prayer. Something about prayers of desperation creates a context for divine breakthroughs. Something about divine breakthroughs transform nominal religion into blazing faith. Something about blazing faith changes not just one life but transforms entire communities and traverses up and down generational lines.
God always has a point and some of the greatest breakthroughs, which are also the greatest times of growth, happen only after some of the greatest trials. A.W. Tozer once said,”It is doubtful whether God can bless a man greatly until he has hurt him deeply.”
You see that in James 1:2-4:
Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (Jas 1:2-4)
Why does it have to be so difficult? Because sometimes that’s the only way you can see Him for Who He is and be able to benefit from all that He does.
A Biblical Approach to Politics | Part IV
I) Intro – A Conflict of Visions
“A Conflict of Visions” is a book by Dr Thomas Sowell. In it, he distills the various political philosophies and worldviews into one of two “visions…”
Sowell is an Economist. He is not a theologian nor does he attempt to position one “vision” over the other in his book. Rather, it’s a dispassionate overview of the two visions and how they capture much of the angst and tension that exists in today’s cultural and political arenas because of the way The Constrained Vision sees life as something that is hard by nature and requires individual resolve and moral courage to succeed… …and not government. The Unconstrained Vision, however, sees life as a place where good things happen automatically and the only barrier to individual and corporate utopia are institutions.
By implementing different laws or instituting different systemic paradigms, suddenly life becomes better. This is what we’re looking at as a society: Two approaches that are defined exclusively by what it is that makes the difference in terms of prosperity and fulfillment both from an individual and a national perspective.
The Constrained Version says that you look to morality, industry and healthy family structures.
The Unconstrained Version says that you depend on institutions and legislative systems for your happiness and satisfaction.
While the practical advantages of the Constrained Version can be validated using objective economic realities, there’s more to this discussion than what can be calculated on an Excel spreadsheet.
While Sowell makes no mention of the spiritual realities inherent in both Versions, because The Constrained Version incorporates morality into its perspective, the definition of what is moral has to be addressed and that will be determined by one’s view on Moral Absolutes. And it’s because the Unconstrained Version doesn’t acknowledge one’s morality as a contributing factor to your economic success, either Moral Absolutes don’t matter or they don’t exist.
Either way, there’s a perspective that goes beyond dollar signs and spills over into personal convictions pertaining to Who it is that makes the rules. It’s here that one’s definition of God becomes the defining issue and this is why we need to be talking about, not just Economics, but the Politics and the Theology those Politics are based on that allow those economies to exist in the first place.
In this series, we’ve looked at how God is intimately engaged in Politics and He expects us to be aware and involved (Dan 2:21; 1 Chron 12:32; 1 Tim 2:2). We also discussed how the best candidate for office is the one who’s platform is most consistent with the foundation laid by our Founding Fathers who conceived a form of government based on Biblical Absolutes.
In Part II, we looked at the importance of being wise in the way you process what you hear and what you see in the media.
In Part III we looked at two of the five tactics that are often used by people who have something to hide more than they have something to say.
Today we conclude our series by looking at the last three of the five tactics referenced in Part III and looking at the importance of evaluating a tree according to its fruit more so than its appearance. Here we go!
II) The Progressive Pentagon (Part II)
But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt…10 Moses said to the Lord, “Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue.”
11 The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? 12 Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say.”
13 But Moses said, “Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else.”
14 Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses… (Ex 3:11; 4:10-14 [see also Matt 7:21-22])
When you’re on the bench, you can’t be expected to be putting points on the board because you’re not on the field. It’s a reasonable sounding excuse for the person who’s looking to avoid having to function and perform. However you may be inclined to say: “I’m not, I don’t, I can’t and I won’t” remember, you are, you do, you can and you will…because He does, He can, He will and He is.
An unwilling mind will take up with a sorry excuse rather than none. (Matthew Henry Commentary on Exodus 4)3
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5)
All a person’s ways seem pure to them, but motives are weighed by the Lord. Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and he will establish your plans. (Prov 16:2-3)
The judgment of God concerning us, we are sure, is according to truth: He weighs the spirits in a just and unerring balance, knows what is in us, and passes a judgment upon us accordingly, writing Tekel (TEE-cale [to weigh]) upon that which passed our scale with approbation—weighed in the balance and found wanting; and by his judgment we must stand or fall. He not only sees men’s ways but tries their spirits, and we are as our spirits are… (Matthew Henry Commentary on Proverbs 16:2-3)
| 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matt 7:21-22) | You can’t drown out the crash of a bad decision with the sound of a good intention. |
| I’m not that bad… |
| The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (Gen 3:12) | “He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.” Benjamin Franklin |
| It’s not my fault… |
Don’t excuse yourself by saying, “Look, we didn’t know.” For God understands all hearts, and he sees you. He who guards your soul knows you knew. He will repay all people as their actions deserve. (Prov 24:12 [NLT])
Proverbs 28:13 “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.”
Recap… An easy way to remember the five tactics that we’ve looked at is by using the acrostic, “Mickey Hood.”
| Mickey Hood | ||
| M | Mobs | They spend more time talking about Labels, Mobs and Crowds than they do a Name, a Person and a Choice. |
| C | Characters | They spend more time assaulting their opponent’s character than they do discussing their opponent’s content. |
| H | Hurt | They spend more time pretending to be hurt than they do proving that they’re right. |
| H | Honest | They spend more time trying to sound honest rather than actually telling the truth. |
| D | Decisions | They spend more time defending bad decisions than they do applauding good choices. |
All of this can be boiled down to one central Truth and that’s the fact that you can know a tree by its fruit…
Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. (Matt 12:33)
However a person looks on paper or in person, however they speak – while all of that is something to be considered, Christ makes it clear that in the end, it’s a person’s actions that reveal their true colors (see Matt 15:18-19). III) Real World Examples Attempting to distract from a person’s actions by using one of the aforementioned tactics so as to better justify what amounts to a bogus mindset is a practice frequently used and is hard to miss once you know what to look for.
A) Illegal Immigration
Prager University recently published a video that details our nation’s immigration policies and describes them as generous and fair (see QR code to the right). There are those, however, who insist that America is a racist enterprise and any kind of legislation that seeks to limit the ability of a particular people group into the country is unjust and a manifestation of its resolve to promote white supremacy. One argument that’s presented as a way to prove the theory that America is a racist nation and has a history of preventing specific ethnicities from entering the country is the Page Act of 1875.
1) Page Act of 1875
Beginning in 1845, Chinese looking to escape the sufferings of the Taiping Rebellion were easily convinced to sign contracts offered by recruiters featuring the promise of a better life in the US in exchange for an extended period of time as an indentured servant.
For all intents and purposes, these “contracts” weren’t designed for the sake of providing opportunities to Chinese foreigners as much as it was an attempt to circumvent the abolition of slavery and secure cheap labor provided by a nationality that was easy to exploit.
This was the “Coolie Trade.” Many of the Chinese that signed these contracts had no idea what they were actually signing up for. Some were actually forced to sign and the conditions that they had to contend with included being congregated at Hong Cong in Barracoons before they were loaded into ships and then transported to any one of a number of foreign destinations that included America, Britain, France Spain and Portugal.
While some died of disease or suicide in the Barracoons, the average mortality rate was 12% during the journey overseas which was the same mortality rate as the African Slave Trade. And while Chinese men were obviously preferred for the sake of physical labor, Chinese women were also being enslaved… …as prostitutes. In 1860, upwards of 85% of Chinese women in San Francisco were prostitutes.
An 1870 census reported that 61% of the 3536 Chinese women in California were employed as sexual appliances. Some of these girls had been kidnapped, many of them had been sold into slavery by their families. It was a terrible life in many ways…
Conditions in the California brothels, concentrated primarily in San Francisco and Los Angeles, were terrible. Often mistreated by customers, the indentured girls received little care and no medical attention. Homesick and left untreated for venereal disease or other illnesses, most women were broken within a few years and rarely lasted more than five or six years in bondage. Some who started when they were 14 years old were dead before they reached 20, according to Chinese academics Yung and Lucie Cheng and the reportage of Gary Kamiya based on stories in the “San Francisco Chronicle” archives.4
In 1862, the Republican party submitted a piece of legislation designed to put an end to the way in which the Chinese people were being abused and exploited. It proved almost impossible to enforce, however, because there was no way to systemically identify a “coolie” from a legitimate Chinese immigrant – an unfortunate circumstance that was enthusiastically embraced by those who profited from the, “Coolie Trade.”
The point of the legislation was not to restrict Chinese people, but to protect them from being exploited. It was called the “Page Act” because of it’s sponsor, Horace Page. When you look him up on Wikipedia, you find this:
Horace Francis Page (October 20, 1833 – August 23, 1890) was an American lawyer and politician who represented California in the United States House of Representatives for five terms between 1873 and 1883. He is perhaps best known for the Page Act of 1875 which began the racial prohibitions against Asian, primarily Chinese, immigration. Page was among a faction of congressmen who openly used racist ideas to defend their positions. Page introduced the Chinese Exclusion Act to the House. When arguing for a ban on the immigration of Chinese laborers, he sought to win support from those who believed in white racial superiority, telling his fellow members that “there is not a member upon this floor… who believes that the coming of the African race… was a blessing to us or to the African himself.5
The comment “…there is not a member upon this floor…who believes that the coming of the African race…was a blessing to us or to the African himself” makes it apparent that this man is a racist. But note the ellipsis (…). Anytime you see those three dots, you may want to roll up your sleeves and do some digging because there’s at least a chance that some crucial context is being omitted.
Here’s the actual comment he made as recorded in the Congressional Record dated March 15, 1882:
I believe, Mr Speaker, that there is not a member upon this floor, of either party, who believes that the coming of the African race to this country originally was a blessing to us or to the African himself. Their condition has long been a subject of careful and earnest consideration among thoughtful people.
The time was, Mr Speaker, when the United States Government undertook to suppress African slavery, or when it entered into an agreement in a treaty with other governments that they would suppress African slavery. It also provided by law that when any vessel having slaves on board was captured upon the high seas by any of our cruisers those Africans found on board and held as slaves, if brought to the United States, should only remain her six months and then be returned back to their native country.6
The point Page was making is that Africans were not brought here voluntarily. As slaves they were subjected to all kinds of inhumane treatment and the result was a horrific existence for the slave and ultimately a war that would wipe out over a quarter of a million people.
While he doesn’t reference the Civil War in his comments, Page was a Major in the California Militia– a unit that was active during the conflict.7 In addition, later on in his comments, he speaks specifically to the Chinese people in general. He says:
The other sections of the bill provide that any native of China who comes here for the purpose of trade or travel or of engaging in legitimate commerce may do so unrestricted and shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges accorded to citizens of the most favored nation.8
When you take the context of his comments into consideration as well as his military record, you find yourself viewing Page not so much as a Racist, but as someone who was concerned about a specific situation more so than a general people group.
If Page was alive today, I can’t help but think he wouldn’t be extremely offended to be labeled, not only a Racist in the context of African Americans, but also in the way he was maligned for supposedly targeting Chinese people in general as opposed to those who were here either against their will or brought here under false pretenses. It’s not that he was looking to limit their opportunities as much as he was trying to destroy the trade of their oppressors.
But did you see how Mickey Hood was used to make Page and his legislation appear malicious?
B) Christopher Columbus
For centuries, Christopher Columbus has been respected as a brave and virtuous explorer credited for having discovered the New World. Recently, however, historians such as Howard Zinn have depicted Columbus as a greedy racist intent on enslaving the natives he encountered and ushered in a wave of disease and abuse that qualifies him as a true villain. He quotes from Columbus’ journals with things like this:
(describing the natives) They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane…The would make fine servants…With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.9
Again, you see the ellipsis and the “mystery” suggested by those three dots does not disappoint, as far as the way it hides the context that Zinn obviously wants to conceal. Columbus’ actual log entry was this (the highlighted section is what Zinn omits):
Thursday, October 11: They neither carry nor know anything of arms, for I showed them swords, and they took them by the blade and cut themselves through ignorance. They have no iron, their darts being wands without iron, some of them having a fish’s tooth at the end, and others being pointed in various ways. They are all of fair stature and size, with good faces, and well made. I saw some with marks of wounds on their bodies, and I made signs to ask what it was, and they gave me to understand that people for other adjacent islands came with the intention of seizing them, and that they defended themselves. I believed, and still believe, that they come here from the mainland to take them prisoners. They should be good servants and intelligent, for I observed that they quickly too in what was said to them, and I believe that they would easily be made Christians, as it appeared to me that they had no religion.10
Columbus wasn’t saying they would make good servants because he had in mind to expand the slave trade to include the natives he had just discovered. Rather, he was observing why this particular people would be potentially victimized by neighboring tribes because they were so submissive.
In his translation of Columbus’s log, Robert Fuson discusses the context that Zinn deliberately left out: “The cultural unity of the Taino [the name for this particular tribe, which Zinn labels “Arawaks”] greatly impressed Columbus…Those who see Columbus as the founder of slavery in the New World are grossly in error. This thought occurred to [Samuel Eliot] Morison (and many others) who misinterpreted a statement made by Columbus on the first day in America, when he said, ‘They (the Indians) ought to be good servants.’ In fact, Columbus offered this observation in explanation of an earlier comment he had made, theorizing that people from the mainland came to the islands to capture these Indians as slaves because there were so docile and obliging.”11
Notice Columbus’ statement: “They should be good servants” and how that one phrase is quoted by Zinn, but then nothing after that is cited until the next section of Columbus’ log which is… …three days later! It’s here where he mentions how the natives could easily be subjugated.
Sunday, October 14: I went to view all this this morning, in order to give an account to your Majesties and to decide where a fort could be built. I saw a piece of land which is much like an island, though it is not one, on which there were six huts. It could be made into an island in two days, though I see no necessity to do so since these people are very unskilled in arms, as your Majesties will discover from seven whom I caused to be taken and brought aboard so that they may learn our language and return. However, should your Highnesses command it all the inhabitants could be taken away to Castile or held as slaves on the island, for with fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we wish.12
It’s hard not to suspect Columbus of something sinister when you hear him assure his sovereigns that they could enslave all of the natives on the island with no problem because, after all, they don’t know anything about modern weaponry and, “…with fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we wish.” If Columbus’ actions had mirrored his comments, there would be good reason to believe that he was scheming to enslave and exploit the Arawaks. But Columbus’ first priority was to be an effective witness:
“I,” he says, ” that we might form great friendship, for I knew that they were a people who could be more easily freed and converted to our holy faith by love than by force, gave to some of them red caps, and glass beads to put round their necks, and many other things of little value, which gave them great pleasure, and made them so much our friends that it was a marvel to see.13
Columbus wanted to convert them to the Christian faith. To do that, in his mind, required genuine friendship and compassion and you can see this if you read his journal entries in their appropriate context. Beyond that, however, you have the reality of a world that is not acknowledged at all by Zinn.
First off, while the natives that Columbus interacted with directly were docile enough, there were other tribes that he could confidently categorize as possible threats given the way in which they had demonstrated their willingness to attack the locals he had met.
The natives make war on each other, although these are very simple-minded and handsomely-formed people14
In addition to the civil unrest among the neighboring islands, it should also be noted that Columbus left some of his sailors behind when he made his way back to Europe only to return and find his men had been murdered to a man.15 So, there was ample reason to be precautious and tactical in the way one planned ahead for any kind of enduring outpost.
To evangelize would require, not only a place to inhabit, but also the means by which to protect oneself from the obvious presence of local violence. And while that perspective may require some conjecture, one aspect of Columbus’ journey which is not open to debate is the condition of Spain in 1492.
The Crusades had resulted in Spain being conquered in 711 A.D. From then until January 1492 when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabelle reclaimed Grenada from the Muslims, Spanish Christendom had endured almost eight centuries of jihad ravages including massacres, pillages and mass enslavements. Columbus was looking for an alternative route to East Asia in order to secure alliances and resources that could be used to reclaim the Holy Land from militant Muslims as well as eliminate the oppressive presence of Islam in the Iberian Peninsula.17
There was more to this trip than a mere curiosity in global sea routes or even the possible discovery of mythical stores of gold. Columbus’ homeland was occupied, the Holy Land was still under Muslim control and there was a New World filled with souls that needed to hear the gospel. Taken together, Columbus’ journey had the potential to right several wrongs, not by supplementing the slave trade with more human resources, but by strengthening the Presence of Christ both at home and abroad.
There were matters far more pressing in Columbus’ mind than his bank statement. While his words can be taken out of context and used to characterize him as a fiend, his actions say otherwise as do the historians and eyewitnesses that are willing to take an objective view of history rather than one poisoned by a political agenda and determined to make use of the Progressive Pentagon.
Which of the tactics represented by the Mickey Hood acrostic are used by Zinn and his likeminded activists?
Seriously.
Take a minute and see if you can’t name a few…
IV) A Ready Response
In May of 1940, the Nazis invaded the Netherlands. Initially, Corrie Ten Boom and her family perceived any effort to protect a Jewish person as a political action and therefore something that didn’t necessarily coincide with a believer’s mandate to focus on matters of the soul as opposed to affairs of state. But one night, a Jewish infant was brought to the Ten Boom home. A local pastor, unwilling to take any personal risk, had brought the child to the Ten Boom’s. Appalled, Casper Ten Boom, Corrie’s father, took the child in and thus began an underground campaign that would successfully hide several Jewish persons, but would cost the lives of several in the Ten Boom family (see “Corrie Ten Boom: A Faith Undefeated”).
What the Ten Boom’s discovered is that Politics is ultimately the collection of laws that define the way a person is to be treated and perceived. Politics is about people and to that end a believer cannot ignore the impact a godly foundation – or the lack thereof – can have on a government and ultimately the citizens who live beneath its legislative umbrella (Prov 29:2).
The purpose of this series is to reveal the spiritual aspect of Politics and to recognize the role that we must play as believers in order to preserve and promote the Truth that defines us as a nation and benefits us as a people. This is why you need to know our nation’s true history and our spiritual heritage. This is why you need to be aware of what’s going on and familiar with the tactics that we’ve discussed so that when it’s time to pray, you know what and who to pray for.
13 “When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chron 7:13-14)
At the beginning of our discussion we looked at Dr Thomas Sowell’s brilliant approach to summarizing the various political and sociological schools of thought into two main “visions.” But his approach can be boiled down into an even more rudimentary collection of categories…
Either God is God or man is god.
When you hear someone say, “You can’t make me believe the same things that you do!” they’re not wrong. You can’t “make” them drive on the right side of the road let alone believe in the God of the Bible.
But that’s not the point.
The question is whether you’re going to formulate your convictions according to what God says or someone else’s opinion.
The challenge, however, is that regardless of how bulletproof your logic may be, the proper processing of God as the Absolute against which all things moral and political are measured is not possible apart from having a relationship with Christ (1 Cor 2:12). This is how a conversation about Christ can occur – by being able to trace the foundation upon which you build your political convictions on the Word of God. And the thing is, you need to be able to do that because more and more our world is becoming a place where there is no bottom line, only different broadcasts. You go to the “Today Show,” and hear one perspective on the President’s State of the Union speech and you can go out and listen to Ben Shapiro offer a completely different viewpoint. Without a definitive Standard to compare things to, the only thing that qualifies something as being “right” is however you as an individual want to process it.
If you perceive credibility as represented by academic degrees or by popular vote, than there is no “right” or “wrong,” there’s just consensus. We are who we are as a nation because we had more than a group dynamic to base our convictions upon and we are that same nation today, but only to the extent that godly men are willing to take their place at God’s Throne on their knees, pray, seek His Face, turn from the wicked ways and ask Him to heal out land (2 Chron 7:14).
God cares about Politics because God cares about people and it’s prayer that resulted in the Declaration of Independence, it’s prayer that produced the Constitution, it’s prayer that has seen us through multiple wars and crises and it’s prayer that will make the difference now.
- “The Independent Whig”, “sowell: the unconstrained vision”, https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/sowell-constrained-and-unconstrained-visions/sowell-the-unconstrained-vision/, accessed February 22, 2022
- Ibid
- Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, Matthew Henry, “Commentary on Exodus 4”, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/exodus/4.html, accessed February 20, 2022
- “China’s Lost Women in the Far West”, Historynet, https://www.historynet.com/chinas-lost-women-in-the-far-west/, accessed February 27, 2022
- Wikipedia, “Horace F. Page”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_F._Page, accessed February 23, 2022
- Congressional Record Containing The Proceedings and Debates of the 47th Congress, First Session, p1932, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=MLQOp17jauUC&pg=GBS.PA1932&hl=en, accessed February 23, 2022
- Page was attached to the unit based out of Placerville, which was the county seat of El Dorado County. You can visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_State_Militia_civil_war_units#Placer_County to see which units were active during the Civil War
- Congressional Record Containing The Proceedings and Debates of the 47th Congress, First Session, p1932, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=MLQOp17jauUC&pg=GBS.PA1932&hl=en, accessed February 23, 2022
- “A People’s History of the United States”, Howard Zinn, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY, originally published in 1980, p1
- “Journal of Christopher Columbus (During his First Voyage, 1492-93): And Documents Relating the Voyages of John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real (Cambridge Library Collection – Hakluyt First Series)”, John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real, p38
- “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regnery History, Washington, D.C., 2019, p12
- “Christopher Columbus: The Four Voyages”, Being his own log book, letters and dispatches with connecting narrative drawn from the Life of the Admiral by his son Hernando Colon and other contemporary historians, edited by J.M. Cohen, Penguin Books, New York, NY, 1969, p58
- “Journal of Christopher Columbus (During his First Voyage, 1492-93): And Documents Relating the Voyages of John Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real (Cambridge Library Collection – Hakluyt First Series)”, p101, https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/columbus/Columbus-Journal.pdf, accessed February 23, 2022
- Ibid, p42
- In “Debunking Howard Zinn,” author Mary Grabar explains how Columbus lost one of his ships and had to leave some sailors behind in that there wasn’t room for everyone on the return voyage. When he returned, every one of his men had been killed. “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regency History, Washington D.C, 2019, p16
- “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regnery History, Washington, D.C., 2019, p10
- “Muslim Spain”, BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml#:~:text=In%20711%20Muslim%20forces%20invaded,1492%20when%20Granada%20was%20conquered, accessed February 27, 2022
- “Debunking Howard Zinn”, Mary Grabar, Regnery History, Washington, D.C., 2019, p14
- “Scholar disputes source of criticism of Columbus (Commentary)”, Mary Grabar, Ph.D., syracuse.com, https://www.syracuse.com/opinion/2020/07/scholar-disputes-source-of-criticism-of-columbus-commentary.html, accessed March 1, 2022
