Mark Shea: Our Founding Fathers Franklin and Jefferson were treasonous knuckledraggers

Over at Patheos (read pathological), Mark Shea, who has a tendency to regale us with his paucity of intellect from time to time (see here) is mocking supporters of Donald Trump while accusing Patrick Buchanan of "treason."

The mental and moral midget writes:

"When a Muslim urges the violent overthrow of the United States we call that 'terrorism'. When an American Muslim does it, we call that 'treason'.
When a grumpy old white male Trump supporter does it, Trumpkins call it 'patriotism', but in fact it is still treason. And if it finds violent expression, it is still terrorism.

News flash to Trumpkins: Your Dear Leader is trailing in the polls fair and square and he will lose fair and square. He already knows it, which is why he is telling his mob of knuckledragging mouthbreathers the election is 'rigged' so they will reject the results of the election as a 'conspiracy' when they lose. This is toxic to our Constitutional order. You will lose. Too bad. Grow up. And if you take up arms against your country in a fit of adolescent pique you will be rightly and properly crushed for your treason."

Let's set aside Mr. Shea's fit of partisan politics and look at this calmly and objectively.

If Mr. Buchanan and others are guilty of "treason" for desiring an overthrow of a government which most Americans would agree has become thoroughly corrupt, then our Founding Fathers were guilty of agitating treason.

Ben Franklin, whom Shea obviously hasn't read, said clearly that:

"We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years."

And how old is America now Mr. Shea?

Thomas Jefferson, that treasonous and "grumpy old white male," said that:


"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established,
should not be changed for light and transient causes... But, when 
a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the 
same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute 
despotism, it is [the people's] right, it is their duty, to throw 
off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Clearly Mr. Shea has no sense of American history.  But then, Mr. Shea has evidenced very little sense whatsoever.

The "Supreme Court's" ruling "legalizing" same-sex "marriage" has no basis in the Constitution

Our Founding Fathers had a healthy respect for Divine Revelation and Natural Law. Homosexual acts were viewed as crimes against nature. Since the Natural Law is immutable, or unchangeable, they still are.

Which is why, as "Supreme Court" Chief Justice John Roberts stressed in his dissenting view over the court's 5-4 ruling "legalizing" same-sex "marriage," "The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent.."

Roberts added in his dissent. "Just who do we think we are?"  See here.

Precisely.

"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:

'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).

"Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.

NEW YORK

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death.

CONNECTICUT

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime.

GEORGIA

That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years.

MAINE

That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor.

PENNSYLVANIA

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods.

SOUTH CAROLINA

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death."

The Socialist plan to disarm America

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton.

I do not usually re-post entire articles from other Blogs.  But here I make an exception.  For two reasons: First, the piece is excellent.  Second, it is a subject of critical importance for the American people.  Our Founding Fathers understood the weakness of human nature and the tendency of power to corrupt those who wield it.  Consequently, they wanted to preserve the ability of the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny, even those tyrants who are homegrown.

In The Federalist, James Madison argued that if the federal government were to act in a way that violated the rights of Americans, any federal army would be "opposed by a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands." (No. 46).  There are those who understand this full well and who want to disarm America to render her vulnerable to Globalists working to establish a Socialist World Order.

The article is entitled, "Globalist Plan to Disarm America," and is written by Bernadine Smith.  Here it is in its entirety:

"If someday your children or grandchildren ask you how Liberty died in America and what happened that caused the demise of the Nation, read this and you will be able to answer them.

If they ask you why the Citizens have been disarmed, you’ll know. If you want to know why, go to your local library, no matter where you live in the United States. Tell the librarian to show you where the ‘United States Code books’ are shelved. There are 25 books in the set. They are reddish-brown in color. They are printed by the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC. These hard-covered books are printed every 8-10 years. They are updated with annual soft-back supplements each year until a new hard cover issue comes out. At the present time, the 1988 hardbacks are on library shelves.

OPEN VOLUME 9. The page numbers are in the center near the middle binding. The section numbers are along the edges.

TURN TO PAGE 651. Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms.

(This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

TURN TO PAGE 652. Here you will find the definition of what the government means by “disarmament.” The disarmament calls for the elimination of our armed forces. It also calls for the elimination of weapons of all kinds.

(This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a).

TURN TO PAGE 654. Here you will find it stated as item (a) “control, reduction and elimination of armed forces…” and as Item (d)” …Elimination of armed forces….” What you need to know is that your armed forces are being eliminated and relinquished from national control which, in turn, wipes out our sovereignty as a nation. In two stages, we will have no more army, no more navy, no more air force. In the third stage, we shall have a “zero” military. Before Stage I closes, all citizen owned guns are to be banned.

(This is Title 22 USC Section 2571 (a).

Public Law 87-297 is further explained in the State Department Document called Publication 7277. Your librarian can also furnish you a copy. Also ask the librarian to get you a copy of “The Blue Print for the Peace Race.” It is a 35-page booklet printed by the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as Publication No. 4 – General Series 3 – Released May of 1962. Publication No. 4 is the unabridged version of State Department Document 7277.

Both of these booklets explain how our military is to be reduced to 2.1 million men. China and the Soviets are to be reduced to that level also. At this point, we are at Stage I at which time we are to transfer (on a permanent basis) one-half of our armed forces to be merged with the Russian and Chinese armies. In Stage II, the remaining one-half of our armed forces is then turned over to this same Security Council of the United Nations. The person in charge of the merged armies must, by agreement, always be a Russian. The world’s smaller nations turn 100% of their armies over to the same under-secretary of the Security, Council in Stage II. President George Bush and Admiral Wm. J. Crowe [have referred] to this process as being “in transition.”

TURN TO PAGE 655. On this page in Volume 9 of the United States Code, read “Policy Formation.” The directives there (written in 1963 to pacify objectors) are supposedly to restrain anyone from disarmament, reducing or limiting our armaments, or taking guns away from the people unless it is pursuant to the treaty-making power of the president, or if it is authorized by further legislation by the Congress. (This is title 22, Section 2573.)

Every couple of years the House of Representatives votes to appropriate funds for this on-going program. Since P.L. 87-297 was first passed into law in 961, there have been 18 updates to it – all bad – with no deletions of these issues I lay before you now. The Congress knows that the plan includes the policing of the United States by foreign troops. (The world army they are forming in Europe.) The Congress is allowing our military bases to be closed down, except for those that will be used by the world army. You will find that plan in Publication 7277 and in “The Blueprint for the Peace Race.”

If the president and Congress can promote a “Constitutional Convention” you will find yourself with two new constitutions (communist in structure) which in one states in Article VIII, Section 12: “No person shall bear arms or possess lethal weapons except the police and members of the armed forces….”

The Congress has praised these documents and is on record in Senate hearings seeking ways to install these constitutions. Ask your librarian for “Revision of the United Nations Charter – Hearings Before a Subcommittee (Foreign Relations) Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S.Government Printing Office.” Nothing has changed since. They are still viable. The ultimate goal to be reached in Stage III of the disarmament process is to “proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force….”

Anyone who doubts the truthfulness of what has been presented here is free to go to the library and go through the steps which have been outlined above. While you are at it, look up Public Law 101-216.



State Department Publication 7277 is available at:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/dos7277.htm


Related reading here.

President Obama, who claims to be a Christian, has denied that America is a Christian nation

Back in 2009, in an article for Salon.com entitled "America is not a Christian nation," Michael Lind wrote, "Is America a Christian nation, as many conservatives claim it is?  One American doesn't think so.  In his press conference on April 6 in Turkey, President Obama explained: 'One of the great strengths of the United States is...we have a very large Christian population - we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.'  Predictably, Obama's remarks have enraged conservative talking heads.  But Obama's observations have ample precedent in American diplomacy and constitutional thought..."  (See here for full article).

Unfortunately for Mr. Lind, the facts of history do not support his theory.  The Charter of New England of 1620 declared that the primary objective of the colony was "the enlargement of Christian religion, to the Glory of God Almighty."  The Mayflower Compact stated clearly that the purpose of the colony was the "advancement of the Christian Faith."  Larry Schweikart notes, in his book "48 Liberal Lies About American History," that: "The founding documents of every one of the original thirteen colonies reveals them to be awash in the concepts of Christianity and God.  Whatever the documents intended by 'religious freedom,' they never in any way, shape, or form intended the state to interfere with Christian religious expression.  It is therefore silly and unsupported to claim, as religious historian Jon Butler tries to do, that "Revolutionary America Wasn't a Christian Nation.'  Christians played so dominant a role in the American revolution that Joseph Galloway, a Loyalist, complained that the rebellion was led by "Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Smugglers.'.." (Larry Schweikhart, 48 Liberal Lies About American History, p. 75).

President Obama and his minions may believe that America was not founded as a Christian nation.  But the Supreme Court, in its unanimous decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), said that: "Our laws and institutions necessarily are based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind...In this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...This is a Christian nation."

President Obama and his minions, in their push for a secularist Socialist State, are engaging in revisionist history when they deny that America was founded as a Christian nation.  Again Larry Schweikart:

"The Continental Congress in 1777 ordered a day of thanksgiving and praise that the people 'join the penitent confession of their manifold sins...that the day, through their humble and ernest supplication...may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ..." (Schweikart, p. 73).  If America was not a Christian nation, what was the Continental Congress doing praying - and exhorting others to pray - through the merits of Jesus Christ?  This is, of course, an insurmountable problem for historical revisionists such as Michael Lind and Barack Obama.

Schweikart continues:

"Even the supposed Deist Benjamin Franklin urged the members of the Constitutional Convention to pray, saying, 'I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men.  And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?  We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.'" (Schweikart, p. 73).

While Barack Obama and his minions are doing their best to re-write American history and to deny our Christian heritage, a Chinese think tank has said that Christianity is what made America great. See here.

Opponents of same-sex "marriage" in New Hampshire seek to amend constitution

The Founding Fathers and homosexuality here. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons" here.


"Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a 'system' and as such is a means and not an end. Its 'moral' value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive 'sign of the times,' as the Church's Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the 'common good' as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.

The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable 'majority' opinions, but only the acknowledgement of an objective moral law which, as the 'natural law' written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of skepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis." (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, No. 70).


"..right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another, so exactly its counterpart, as all of us are to one another…And so, however we may define man, a single definition will apply to all." [ Cicero, Laws I x 28-30]


Related reading: What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts; article from Mass Resistance here.

More on the Homosexual Hate Movement here.

The first Bishop of Worcester and the Common Good here.

Founding Fathers and homosexuality...

"It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:

'What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . . I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).'" (Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769, Vol. IV, pp. 215-216).





"Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:



That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.





NEW YORK



That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death.





CONNECTICUT



Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime.





GEORGIA



That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years.





MAINE



That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor.





PENNSYLVANIA



[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods.





SOUTH CAROLINA



That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death."





For much more, view the excellent article at Wallbuilders which may be found here. All sources are listed at the end of the article.

Our Founding Fathers had a healthy respect for Divine Revelation and Natural Law. Homosexual acts were viewed as crimes against nature. Since the Natural Law is immutable, or unchangeable, they still are.