There is a civil war brewing in the Republican party. For several years I have been ordering Christian-X, and the Tea Party, to get out of the Republican Party founded by my kindred. Many evangelicals are claiming America belongs to them. They say it is their heritage divinely given to them by Jesus. I disagree – sometimes as a Nazarite. I have one person in my church – me!

Now that a radical Christian faction of the Republican party is threatening to shut down government, I believe it is vital their claim as owners of this Democracy be severely challenged! This Holy Deed must be refuted and taken away from them just incase it is the MOTIVE for creating chaos!

“Hey! They own America, so they have the right to do what they please.”

Jon Presco

He also said that if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid nixes the House plan, then “he’s responsible for shutting down the government.”

Reid said last week he would keep the health law intact despite Republicans’ attempts, in his words, “to take an entire law hostage simply to appease the Tea Party anarchists.”

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, told Fox News that Cruz’s efforts were destructive and self-serving as he eyes a White House campaign.

“This is about running for president with Ted Cruz,” she said. “This isn’t about meaningful statesmanship.”

WASHINGTON — With one week left before a possible government shutdown, congressional debate has exposed deep divisions within the Republican Party, pitting tea-party-backed conservatives against their colleagues.
Budget moves orchestrated by tea party leader Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas have encountered outright hostility from fellow Republican senators who say his strategy does not appear to have an endgame.

“I didn’t go to Harvard or Princeton, but I can count,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said last week in a not-so-veiled swipe on Twitter at Cruz, who studied at both schools. Cruz’s strategy is leading the party into a “box canyon” and “will fail and weaken our position,” Corker said.
Several key Republicans have distanced themselves from their more firebrand colleagues. A sign of the party’s public relations pretzel was clear Saturday as the conservative advocacy group Heritage Action for America urged senators to block the bill, which on Friday it had urged House Republicans to pass.

“If we could do this, we should do it. But we can’t,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

http://www.carbonated.tv/news/ted-cruz-vs-fox-news-republican-civil-war

The Washington budget battle intensified Sunday, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi saying Republicans’ ultimatum to either defund ObamaCare or risk a government shutdown is “legislative arson.”

“This is totally irresponsible, completely juvenile, and, as I called it, ‘legislative arson,’ ” the California Democrat told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It’s just destructive.”

But top Republicans publicly and privately say a filibuster could be a losing proposition. Not only would the party probably face public blame — much as it did during the last government shutdowns in 1995 and ’96 — but there is no simple exit strategy even if it succeeds.
Several key Republicans have distanced themselves from their more firebrand colleagues. A sign of the party’s public relations pretzel was clear Saturday as the conservative advocacy group Heritage Action for America urged senators to block the bill, which on Friday it had urged House Republicans to pass.

https://rosamondpress.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/get-out-of-the-republican-party/

https://rosamondpress.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/get-the-hell-out-of-my-party/

Baton Rouge – Rick Santorum has defended himself against critics who slated him for courting the Rev. Dennis Terry of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, Baton Rouge, by insisting he didn’t clap when Terry said non-Christians should get out of the country.”

The Republican Party and the nation of Israel – where Abraham once dwell – was founded by Socialist Germans, and my kindred, Jessie and John Fremont. Abraham did not live in America. Reverend Terry claims Jesus is God, then changes his tune.
GET OUT of my people’s party you bigoted liar! And take your ilk with you! Form your own party! Say what you will – in your own party of God-Jesus. But, your kind won’t, because you are more interested in winning elections – at any cost – then serving your Lord by spreading His Word! A third religious party would lose elections for Republicans – everywhere!
Santorum claims he wasn’t listening, his mind on playing politics – in the name of Jesus!

The Sons of Confederate Veterans under Denne Sweeney claim they are only recreating their beloved history, and are not Traitors reborn. Well, if this is true, then I highly suggest you get out of Fremont’s Republican Party, and become Democrats – again! Three years ago I registered as a Republican Prophet, who clearly saw your true motives, and drove Fremont’s flags into the heart of your Dragon!
Get out!
Jon the Nazarite

As we have reported recently, the Republican Party is undergoing something akin to a civil war right now.  On one side, traditional and establishment conservatives led by establishment figures such as John Boehner and John McCain seek to maintain their position while looking electable to the general electorate.  On the other, the Tea Party/quasi-libertarian wing, led by upstart Senator Rand Paul and former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan, seek to change the entire Republican Party platform, which consists in large part of preventing any law from being pushed forward.  There are many outside actors on each side as well, as was demonstrated on talk show Fox News Sunday, when pro-establishment Chris Wallace went on the attack against Tea Party Senator (and Joe McCarthy lookalike) Ted Cruz from Texas, armed with information from leading Republicans.
Ted Cruz used the Fox News opportunity to defend recent accusations of betrayal, following the basic acknowledgement that the bill to continue funding the government at the cost of funding the Affordable Care Act, passed by the Republican-majority House, would fail in the Senate, controlled by Democrats.  There, Senator Cruz explained a plan to pass the bill in the Senate, using the filibuster to prevent Democratic amendments that would fund the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, since he thinks such measures would require 60 votes.
This sounded like a fine plan and all, except even Chris Wallace acknowledged the foolishness of this tactic.  Wallace had to point out to Ted Cruz that Senate Rule XXII, which forms the basis of the filibuster, is only used to end debate, not vote on amendments.  Bill amendments only need a simple majority of 51 votes to pass, which the Democrats have.  Later on, Fox News commentators Brit Hume and Karl Rove, both known to lean pro-establishment at times, also pointed out the silliness of this plan.  Senator Cruz attempted to pedal back by pushing for passing continuing resolutions in smaller departments, all the while attaching the “defund Obamacare” provision.

Bernard Ramm’s short book The Evangelical Heritage, traces the development of evangelical thought from the origins of Christianity to the present day.  He reviews major theological developments and arguments in the history of Christianity and discusses what relevance they have for the evangelical today, what positions evangelical theology typically has taken on the big questions, and what Christian thinkers and thoughts have come to form our heritage.

Ramm’s writing is clear and to the point.  His tone is that of a storyteller finding our strand in the grand tapestry of Christian history.  He describes fairly, takes sides carefully, and backs up his judgements with reasoned argument stemming from clear criteria.  But his use of history to sketch the evangelical identity is the best part of the book.  By positioning the evangelical mindset in the history of Christianity he succeeds in portraying the contemporary evangelical not as a descendent of the Reformation, but of the Early Church.  Evangelicals, he asserts, have crucial lessons to learn from and similarities to Christians in all previous eras:  indeed, at one point he boldly claims, “An evangelical with an ahistorical faith is a superficial Christian.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/schaeffersghost/2013/04/the-genealogy-of-evangelicalism/

   Clearly there is a difference between these two genealogies. They both start with David and they both end with Jesus, but the names in between are completely different. There aren’t even the same number of names in the two lists. Matthew Henry, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, wrote:
       The difference between the two evangelists in the genealogy of Christ, has been a stumbling block to infidels that cavil at the word…[Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments. Vol. V. Philadelphia: Towar & Hogan, 1828, p. 482]
       Skeptics have looked at these differences and have arrived at a simple solution to the problem: the genealogies are, in essence, pious fiction. They are not really genealogies of Christ, but have been composed, perhaps from other sources, so as to try to legitimize Jesus’ claim to Messiahship.

Was my ancestor a missionary?  If you believe that your ancestor was a missionary, then again, we may be able to help you.    We have obituaries for many of the denomination’s missionaries and we have reports filed by many of the missionaries about their work.  If the person you are researching falls into this category then please feel free to fill out our Genealogical Research Form. 

The arguments are legion. “It isn’t relevant because it was written by old white men,” or  ”It was written by slave owners, therefore it must be flawed,” or my personal favorite, “How could men who lived 250 years ago possibly understand the intricacies of today’s modern society?”

To qualify for membership in the National Society of Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America (NSDFP), one must possess a Founder ancestor who arrived in one of the colonies between May 13, 1607, and May 13, 1686, and a Patriot ancestor who rendered military service, civil service, or aid in establishing American Independence in the period 1775 to 1784. In 1975 the National Society published an index to its lineage records.

She traces the concept of participatory government, due process, taxation without representation, Congressional (Parliamentary) authority to draft law, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and many other concepts that emerged from the struggles and difficulties of generations past. From England in 1066 to King John and the Magna Carta; from King Charles and the Petition of Rights in 1628 to King James II and the Glorious Revolution of 1689–each fight for liberty studiously observed by our Founders, and from which such important concepts as the aforementioned are gleaned.
She teaches that if the document had no heritage; no foundation in past victories- then we can certainly assume that a document which emerged simply from the imaginations of a few 18th century men could very well indeed be a fundamentally flawed document. This isn’t, however, the case.
This isn’t to say that the Founders weren’t an exceptional group of men. Ms. Hall notes that a fairly small percentage of the colonists actively stepped forward to participate in this revolution, and of these those who openly signed their name to the Declaration of Independence were even fewer. Thus it was indeed providential that the group of men were able to get together and agree upon precisely which portions of English history to focus. They were also, contrary to what modern day history books tell you, God-fearing men. It was this understanding of the hand of God in the rights of mankind coupled with the Founders’ expansive knowledge of their own heritage’s successes and failures that produced the wildly successful document we know as the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Hall reminded the crowd of Benjamin Franklin’s sage words:

http://afuturefree.com/2013/01/23/krisanne-hall-the-genealogy-of-the-constitution/

Would it surprise you to discover that hardly a concept in the Bill of Rights was “new”?  Would it surprise you to discover that the problems the Founders faced and addressed with the Constitution were scarcely novelties? And, as Ms. Hall points out, liberty was not invented in their generation-they simply learned from their history and avoided its mistakes, while gleaning from its highest points. Our Constitution has an “English Family Tree” nourished by the understanding Natural Law, and the precepts of a Judeo-Christian world-view, and it was this genius set into motion in the form of a document by a few providential men, that unlocked a free nation unlike any other.

The arguments are legion. “It isn’t relevant because it was written by old white men,” or  ”It was written by slave owners, therefore it must be flawed,” or my personal favorite, “How could men who lived 250 years ago possibly understand the intricacies of today’s modern society?”

The arguments are legion. “It isn’t relevant because it was written by old white men,” or  ”It was written by slave owners, therefore it must be flawed,” or my personal favorite, “How could men who lived 250 years ago possibly understand the intricacies of today’s modern society?”

Founding Fathers and Ethnosymbols: Re-interpreting the Founding heritage according to Occupy

Intro

The Founding Father legacy is without a doubt the primary source of American nationalism. The American Revolution, George Washington, the Declaration of Independence and the Liberty Bell are symbols which inspire pride and passion within the hearts of American citizens. The narrative of the emancipation of the thirteen united colonies and the subsequent establishment of the first modern republic is indeed the beating heart of American nationalistic sentiment.

An interesting field of study is the way in which these national symbols are re-interpreted politically. Although they may all point towards an idea of “Americanness” they are used to convey different messages by different social actors. In the past year, we have witnessed how the Tea Party has employed them, accusing Obama’s administration of straying off the sacred path set by our Founding principles; namely small government, individual freedom and free trade. And yet, very recently, even the Occupy movement has begun re-articulating the Founding legacy in progressive terms, invoking a new American Revolution to emancipate the nation from the stranglehold that corporations and financial institutions impose on the democratic process.

This re-articulation of Founding Father symbols is an act of liberation from the conservative interpretation they have traditionally been imbued with. It distances them from the domain of the political right. Moreover, it breaks the ideological chains which confine the Founding heritage to a narrow set of conservative, individualistic and capitalism-justifying principles, thereby allowing us to fully appreciate the emancipatory potential found within its political discourse.

Theories of Nationalism

Within the study of nationalism, national symbols are referred to as ethnosymbols: myths, customs, traditions, and memories which pertain to dominant ethnic groups. According to the ethnosymbolist school of thought, modern nations emerge out of the cultural traits and traditions of dominant ethnic cores[1]. In the case of the US, these would be the cultural values highlighted for example by Max Weber in “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” belonging to the descendants of the Plymouth Rock pilgrims. Contrarily, the school of thought referred to as modernism asserts that ethnosymbols are not necessarily genuine products of a homogeneous ethnic core but are rather symbols which elites manipulate -or deliberately “invent”- for the purposes of nation-building[2].

However, a third school of thought attempts to reconcile these two opposite approaches. The ideas of theorists such as Oliver Zimmer and Eric Kaufmann reject the notion that ethnosymbols are mere constructs. Nonetheless, they believe that they may be re-interpreted in different ways depending on who is articulating them. Zimmer suggests that social actors may access a “stock” of deposited symbolic resources (national myths, memories, traditions) and employ them to advance their own particular idea of the nation’s culture, politics or society[3]. Similarly, Kaufmann asserts that different social actors view symbolic resources through different “ideological lenses”: what looks like a symbol signifying conservative values for some, might stand for progressive values for others[4].

This third approach allows us to recognize that the Founding Father symbols do not point towards a single set of values, traditions or political ideas, but that they may be employed to grant historical legitimacy to alternative ideological dispositions and demands.

Re-Articulating the Founding

A brief look at the rhetoric employed by Tea Party movement websites reveals a particular understanding of the values attributed to the Founding Father legacy. For them, the Founders believed primarily in individual liberty, limited government and free markets, and abhorred ideas regarding the common good, collectivity or redistribution.

“The Tea Party Patriots’ mission is to restore America’s founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.”[5]

“The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.”[6]

Such statements re-interpret the Founding legacy as being based primarily on the tenets of possessive individualism and laissez fair capitalism. Moreover, the Tea Party claims this heritage for itself:

“From our founding, the Tea Party is the voice of the true owners of the United States, WE THE PEOPLE.” [7]

Of course, this interpretation is historically inaccurate. The research of Quentin Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock has revealed that the Founding Fathers were not cut-throat capitalists but rather civic republicans. In fact, they were concerned with the common good, the primacy of the collective over the individual and nurtured a profound distrust of private interests[8].

More recently however, we are witnessing the use of Founding Father symbols by the Occupy movements as well. The most visible example is the Declaration of Occupation drafted Sept. 29 at the New York City General Assembly[9]. The vocabulary used to express OWS grievances is deliberately similar to that in the Declaration of Independence. “Let these facts be known” (“let Facts be submitted to a candid world” in the DoI) followed by a list of grievances, basically replaces George III with the 1% as the source of injustice and inequality.

A similar example is the re-interpretation of the Boston Tea Party of 1773. For the Tea Party movement it is a paradigmatic example of resistance against government taxation. For many in OWS it represents the first act of resistance against a transnational corporation: the East India Company. In a brilliant essay published on the Occupied Wall Street Journal, Rebecca Manski writes:

“The biggest act of sabotage against a multinational corporation in American history began with a gathering at the Liberty Tree. That act was the Boston Tea Party.”[10]

Similarly, a disgruntled citizen venting his grievances on wearethe99percent.tumbler.com states:

“That is not the America our Founding Fathers built. People forget that the original Tea Party was against a corporation and its influence on our government. Our Founding Fathers feared just what is happening today. I AM THE 99% AND I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!”[11]

Occupy History!

The model presented by Zimmer and Kaufmann suggests that national symbols are never totally pre-determined and that they may be invested with different meanings and used for alternative purposes. This “liberates” such symbols from the traditionally conservative interpretation they have long been invested with. Once they are available for use, we may fully recognize the emancipatory potential found within them and the radical dimension of their politics.

The American Founding Fathers ignited a democratic revolution which turned the feudal and aristocratic world on its head. They fought a democratic revolution for political participation, liberty, equality, free constitutions and bills of rights. Of course, they owned slaves and most of them were wealthy aristocrats. They were not free of faults, vices or contradictions. And yet, this does not mean that their radical political discourses should be absorbed within the ideological hegemony of neoliberalism -which has neutered their radical character and used them as symbols to grant itself historical legitimacy.

The re-articulation of these symbols demonstrates one of the greatest strengths of the Occupy movement: the ability to reclaim the social, political, cultural and economic discourses from fields of thought which were previously saturated with neoliberal ideology. The reclaiming of history sends out a clear message: our Founding Fathers were not devoted to unfettered markets and laissez fair capitalism. Far from it. Our founding fathers provided the foundations for the democratic revolution which We the People, as their heirs, are still fighting today.