Archive for the ‘Historical Exposes’ Category

It is very heartening to hear of local officials in New York and elsewhere starting to stand up against the central government’s deceptive power grab disguised as gun safety.  It is the Biblical responsibility of the lower magistrate to lead the people against a tyrannical higher magistrate, in this case Barack Hussein Obama.

However, this legal right of the lower magistrate presupposes a commitment to  reestablish the rule of God and his law.  If this is lacking the resistance is no better than the Jewish rebels who resisted the Army of Nebuchadnezzar to the bitter end.  We must face the bitter reality that Barack Obama is America’s Nebuchadnezzar, called by God from a foreign land to discipline his lawless church.

Returning to the Constitution is exactly the wrong approach because the Constitution stands in defiance of the Word of God.  We must return to God and His law as our standard if we expect Him to bless our resistance.

Unfortunately, this is not usually the attitude of the typical American Christian conservative.  The February 15 edition of Freedom Outpost featured the 25-0 vote of the Oswego County legislature in a resolution against the recently passed draconian gun laws in New York state.

Oh my friends there are patriots abounding that are standing up for liberty and the Constitution. They will not have the law of the land trampled under foot by zealous, emotional politicians who would violate the law through means of unlawful laws in order to make themselves look good and place a feeling of security around the people they govern, while not providing a shred of security for them. They are moving in the direction of slavery, not liberty. They are making the people vulnerable, not secure or safe.

It’s good to see counties like Oswego and others standing up for the law and for liberty against the tyrants in New York’s government. Take heart, it isn’t just happening there, but around the country!

The article spoke of a “third militia” in addition to the federal military and national guard.  This third militia is said to be comprised of the people, who are called upon to defend the state when the others will not.

I wish it were true, but the terrifying fact is that our forefathers gave away most of our powers of self-defense when they ratified the Constitution in 1787.   This reality is hidden by the MYTH – popular among conservatives — of the citizen militia always on guard against tyranny.

Unlike the 21st Amendment, which specifically repealed the 18th, the 2nd Amendment did not repeal the damage done in the body of the Constitution.

Section 1: The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Here are some excerpts from our MythBusters Case#19, where the nearly complete grant of power to the Federal government is exposed.

The central government has 13 positive powers related to “defense,” compared to the states two positives and two negatives.  Do the algebra and that is 13 to zero in favor of the central government.  They were no doubt smirking, “All of the power related to the militia belongs to us, but we’ll let you do all the heavy lifting of training them for us.”   What a deal!

The states can’t even defend themselves under the Constitution without permission from the national government now headed by Barack Hussein Obama.   The U.S. Constitution is a slender reed to rely on for defense against Federal tyranny.

The Bill of Rights did not repeal the 13 defense-related rights in the body of the Constitution.  The 2nd Amendment’s call for a well-regulated militia does not overturn the power delegated to Congress in Article I for “organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia…”?  The 2nd Amendment should have read something like this:

Section 1: The power for organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing the militia is hereby restored to the states individually and the states may use it to execute the laws of the state, suppress insurrections, or repel invasions as they see fit.

Section 2: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Conservatives like to boast that these are part of the “limited, delegated powers” that were granted to the Federal government in Article I.  Everything not listed here is reserved to the states or to the people.  Very comforting.  The big question is, what is not listed here?   Certainly not the right to regulate the militia.

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t allow for the well-regulated so-called “third militia” comprised of the people.  The people are a subset of the states and as we have seen the surrender of power by the states was almost total.

Case Closed:  This was one reason Patrick Henry hated the proposed U.S. Constitution and fought its passage bitterly in the Virginia Ratifying Convention.  As he stated on June 9, 1788: “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?…. The power of arming the militia, and the means of purchasing arms, are taken from the states by the paramount powers of Congress….”

Three cheers for those local officials who are taking a stand, but unfortunately even the Biblical right of interposition has been stripped from us by Lincoln’s unCivil War.  It is time to repent before God and return to the bedrock of liberty found in the higher law as our authority.  That includes passages such as Psalm 149:6,7ff:  “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand, to execute vengeance on the nations…”

Weeks after the fact, the Sandy Hook tragedy is still fresh on the mind because twenty of those murdered were children of such a tender age.  Families have been devastated for life.

Tearful and determined people demonstrated in Washington D.C. with signs reading, “Never forget Sandy Hook.”  And who can forget a tragedy of such magnitude.  People are demanding, and rightly so, that something be done about these massive school shootings.  An article in February 3 issue of Freedom Outpost stated the following:

A father of a Sandy Hook Elementary School student testified on January 28, 2013 in a Working Group Public Hearing at the Connecticut State Capitol on gun violence prevention. While Bill Stevens’ fifth grade daughter was not harmed in the incident, she was a part of the children that were in “lock down” during the shooting and following it. However, Mr. Stevens said that his daughter’s friend’s little sister was one of the children that was murdered…

All of which serves to reinforce the Myth: We need more gun control laws to put an end to these mass gun killings.

The myth is so superficial that MythBusters can’t help but suspect the motives of its perpetrators.  You don’t have to look very far into history, recent social experimentation, and the Bible to conclude that the gun control argument is a fraud.  We found the evidence to be overwhelming.

Click Here To Keep Reading:

Somebody once defined an oxymoron as “someone who forgets to breathe.”  There are some really funny oxymorons out there:  military intelligence, government worker, government organization, and pretty ugly, among many others.

That last one describes Paul Ryan’s lastest decision to a tee.  In a brilliant political move, calculated to appease the GOP’s restless Christian conservative base, Paul Ryan yesterday announced his support for Obama’s new policy of open acceptance of homosexuals in the military.

There is no word in the English language to describe that last statement.  Facetious doesn’t even come close.  But the decision was so politically obtuse, irony is perhaps the best way to communicate its absurdity.  And it illustrates another great oxymoron that is not quite so funny, namely, “Christian conservative.”

Many evangelicals who think both candidates are totally unqualified to be President of the United States, have nonetheless been teetering on the edge of casting a vote for Mitt Romney.  Arguments that a refusal to vote is a vote for Obama and all the Bible really requires in the political realm is a peaceful environment for the spread of the gospel had begun to make traction.

Timothy calls on Christians to pray for political leaders so that, ” …we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.  This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior” (I Tim. 2:2).

Enter Paul Ryan as reported by Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.  Ryan’s oxymoron is not only a slap in the face to Christians, but it puts a big nail in the coffin of an old myth that has lingered for decades in the Christian right.

Myth:  Social Conservatism and Christianity have the same political objectives and a vote for one is identical to a vote for the other.

Far more dangerous, Ryan’s decision is a slap in the face to God, and we’ll get back to that in a minute.  His decision is a classic example that Conservatism is nothing more than a commitment to something that has been around for a while.  We’ve always done it that way and it’s worked in the past for most of us, so why rock the boat.   This is our time-honored tradition.  But times change and if a majority comes to agree that there is a better way to live with the changing times, so be it.  This is a species of “historicism.”  What is, is right.

We’re just not “early adopters.”  We peer cautiously into the future.  We’ll resist the change for a while, but when the consensus starts to shift you can count on us to go along with the crowd.   “Let’s move on” is our motto.  On to the next round of heel-dragging, accommodation, and eventual defeat.


Another Great Oxymoron is

Government Education

If You’re Looking For The Real Thing

Check Out King’s Way Classical Academy

Only $500 Annual Tuition!


No one has stated this more clearly than Rev. Robert L. Dabney, field chaplain to General Stonewall Jackson during the Civil War.  But, lest you immediately dismiss Rev. Dabney as a hopeless bigot, let me point out that there was a theological reason behind his opposition to women’s suffrage.  Prior to that time Christians in general believed that God deals governmentally with the husband as representative of the family, as when he spoke with Adam not Eve immediately after the Fall.   Although it is lengthy we quote it here in its entirety:

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance.

“The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.

A moment ago we noted that the biggest danger in this decision lies in the offense that it gives to Yahweh God.  For that we will let Him speak for Himself.

  •  “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22).
  •  “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, both of them shall surely be put to death; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Lev. 20:13). 
  • “And although they know the ordinance of God that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Rmn. 1: 32).

Case Closed:  Although the issues and agenda of conservatism and Christianity may at times coincide, there is a world of difference between the two.  Conservatism is based on the shifting sand of human tradition, which is subject to constant change.  Christianity is based on the unshakeable foundation of God’s holy word, which is unchangeable.

Hence the oxymoron, Christian conservative.  Habitual use of the oxymoron Christian conservative is a bit like trying to mix oil and water.

MythBusters Rating:  Blue Flag to Americans For Truth About Homosexuality for their courage in standing against the tide of popular media opinion regarding homosexual “marriage.”  Don’t miss the oxymoron, popular opinion.

The growing list of some 250 sheriff’s around the country willing to resist the illegal Federal crackdown on private ownership of firearms is heartening. The problem is there is not much foundation for this resistance based on the authority of the U.S. Constitution.

Oath Keepers is an American nonprofit organization that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement uphold the Constitution of the United States should they be ordered to violate it.  The Oath Keepers’ motto is ‘Not On Our Watch.”  And their stated objective is to resist those actions taken by the U.S. Government that overstep Constitutional boundaries.

That entire paragraph is a direct quote from the Oath Keepers website.  MythBusters is grateful for the work of Oath Keepers and wish them success in mobilizing resistance to the encroaching Federal tyranny.    The appeal for passive resistance is the first line of defense.

Anything more than that at present could get you in big trouble under the Constitution.  MythBusters initial reaction was that Oath Keepers’ appeal to the U.S. Constitution could ultimately be turned against them.  This is because the Constitution handed over almost all defense-related powers — including the militia — to the Federal government.

Myth:   Local jurisdictions, especially the county sheriff, are authorized by the Constitution to organize armed resistance against the Federal government.

This myth showed up last week in our mail box in a letter from the Council On Revival.   COR is a group devoted to the noble goal of a 24-year Master Plan For Rebuilding America.  Unfortunately, they also are attempting to build on the sandy foundation of the United States Constitution.  This sentence caught our eye:

“Hopefully such confrontations will not arise, but the probability of a tyrannical, socialistic government (if it degenerates to that) attacking citizens in any county would be GREATLY REDUCED if even 60% of all U.S. counties had their own “well regulated militia” armed and ready to fight to the death if necessary for their God-given, constitutional rights.”

MythBusters began this investigation with a careful reading of Article I of the United States Constitution.  We came away with several key observations.  First, only Congress, not the states is authorized “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”  Later Article I says that “No State shall, without the consent of Congress … keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace…or engage in war, unless actually invaded….”


Is Public Education Really Worth The Price?

You Get What You Pay For It — Nothing!

Your Child Deserves the Best

At A Price You Can Afford

King’s Way Classical Academy

For Only $500 Annual tuition!!


The only thing the states can do is 1) appoint the officers and 2) train the militia as specified by Congress.   This seemed to confirm our initial hunch that the plan outlined in the previous paragraph may not be legal under the United States Constitution.

But we decided to dig deeper.  Here’s a little project for you.  Read through Article I of the U.S. Constitution and write down all the powers related to defense that the states gave away to Congress.  Never mind, MythBusters did it for you.  Here’s the list of supposedly “limited powers” related to defense that “we the people” turned over to the national government in 1788.

Congress has authority to:

  • To lay & collect taxes…for the common defense
  • To declare war….
  • To raise & support armies
  • To provide & maintain a navy
  • To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
  • To provide for the calling forth the militia

1)      to execute the laws of the Union

2)      to suppress insurrections

3)      to repel invasions

  • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia
  • To provide for governing such part of them  [the militia] as may be employed in the service of the United States
  • To make all laws which shall be necessary & proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States

States have authority to:

  • Appointment of the officers [of the militia]
  • Training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

States are specifically forbidden to:

  • … keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace
  • …engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

The central government has 13 positive powers related to “defense,” compared to the states two positives and two negatives.  Do the algebra and that is 13 to zero in favor of the central government.  They are no doubt smirking, “All of the power related to the militia belongs to us, but we’ll let you do all the heavy lifting of training them for us.”   What a deal!

According to the Constitution the states can’t even defend themselves without permission from the Federal Congress.  It would appear that anybody relying on the United States Constitution for defense against Federal tyranny needs to readjust their thinking cap.

The Bill of Rights never repealed the above powers.  Does the 2nd Amendment’s call for a well-regulated militia, overturn the power delegated to Congress in Article I for “organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia…”?   We don’t think so.

Conservatives like to boast that these are part of the “limited, delegated powers” that were granted to the Federal government in Article I.  Everything not listed here is reserved to the states or to the people.  Very comforting.  The big question is, what is not listed here?   Certainly not the right to regulate the militia.

Try this test:  you have 1 minute to write down 1 legitimate, Biblical power of government that is not included on the list in Article I.  OK, time’s up………Maybe you need more than a minute?

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn’t allow for the well-regulated militia to be “organized legally under one’s own county sheriff or state governor,” as COR would like to believe. This is one of the main reasons that Patrick Henry so adamantly opposed the Constitution in the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

As he stated on June 9, 1788: “Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?…. The power of arming the militia, and the means of purchasing arms, are taken from the states by the paramount powers of Congress….”

Case Closed:  Oath Keepers and COR are asking former government officials to honor their oath to defend the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  They could get what they ask for:  Under the Constitution they themselves might be declared domestic enemies for trying to mobilize and encourage the states to “keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace.”

This is why Patrick Henry said of the proposed Constitution, “I despise and abhor it.”   Better to appeal to the “higher law” of God in the Bible.   We can only conclude that God’s judgment is descending on this nation precisely because this covenant-breaking Constitution has rejected that very law.  MythBusters Rating:  Yellow Flag (caution) to Oath Keepers and COR for their dangerous reliance on the U.S. Constitution.

An impressive voter packet mobilizing opposition to Barack Obama recently arrived in the mailbox of Christian Conservatives nationwide.

Sent out by Faith & Freedom Coalition – the new face of the old Christian Coalition – it pitted “Obama vs The Constitution” in a bid “to restore constitutional government to America.”

The eight-page letter said nothing about national repentance to God or a return to the law of God, but had much to say about a return to the U. S. Constitution.  For example, the goal of the “November 6th Project” is to prove “that restoring Constitutional government is both a winning political strategy and America’s only real hope for survival as ‘the land of the free.'”

Notice that “our only real hope for survival” is “restoring Constitutional government“, but nothing is said about restoring America’s broken covenant with God and His law.  The solution to our dilemma is framed in exclusively political rather than spiritual terms.  The goal is presented in terms of American freedom, not God’s glory and offended justice.

The letter portrays Christian conservatives as innocent victims, not as co-belligerents  with liberals against the authority of the law of God.  When Daniel prayed for restoration of the nation he started with an acknowledgment that “we have sinned…even turning aside from Thy commandments and ordinances…therefore the Lord has kept the calamity in store….” (Dan. 9:5,14).  He didn’t distinguish between the “good guys” and the “bad guys” in the nation because there really were no “good guys.”

The letter said nothing about Christian conservative neglect of God’s ordinances (Ex. 21-23), but had a lot to say about President Obama’s offenses against the Constitution and the American people.  “Barack Obama’s hostility toward America’s Constitution is just as intense as his hostility to Christianity.  And he’s open about it.  He has called our Constitution ‘deeply flawed.’  So Obama has made it clear that he REJECTS  the Constitution and really doesn’t care what the law is.” 

According to Faith & Freedom the choice before the voters in 2012 should be this:

 “Do you stand with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James      Madison,  America’s Founding Fathers, and the U.S. Constitution?

 Or do you stand with Obama, who does not believe in liberty, and who has no respect for our constitution?”

Myth:  A return to the United States Constitution is equivalent to a return to the law of God

To assist our investigation of this myth, History MythBusters turned to a new book by Pastor Ted Weiland, entitled, “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution.”  Many theologians have pointed out various Biblical inconsistencies in the U. S. Constitution.   But to our knowledge, this book is the first attempt to analyze the Constitution paragraph-by- paragraph according to the Bible.  Our research found the U. S. Constitution to be Biblically deficient on almost every point of law.  Here are a few examples.

  • The Constitution derives its governing authority from “we the people,” whereas the Bible says all governing authority is derived from God (Rmn 12:1).
  •  The Constitution requires that runaway slaves be returned to their masters, whereas the Bible forbids returning runaway slaves to their masters (Dt. 23:15).
  •  The Constitution allows for unlimited offensive war, whereas the Bible prohibits offensive warfare (Dt. 17:16; II Chr. 35:21-24).
  • The Constitution outlaws Biblical character requirements for public office” (Art. VI), whereas the Bible requires such qualifications (Dt. 1:13, Ex 18:21)
  • The Constitution allowed slave trading for 20 years, whereas the Bible requires the death penalty for kidnapping.
  •  The Constitution states all manmade laws and treaties are the “supreme law of the land (Art. VI),” whereas the Bible insists its law is supreme.  (I Tim. 1:8-11)
  • The Constitution protects public worship of false gods (1st Am), whereas the Bible forbids the public worship of false gods (Ex. 20:3)
  • The Constitution requires a census every ten years, whereas the Bible forbids the census (II Kgs 20:12,13; 24:1-4)
  • The Constitution has no limit on taxation above the 10% which the Bible calls slavery (I Samuel 8)

Case Closed:  Remarkably almost every paragraph of the United States Constitution was found to be in violation of the law of God.  MythBusters counted at least 75 violations of the Bible in the U.S. Constitution.  Thus, those who claim that the Constitution is a Christian document are either ignorant of the Constitution , ignorant of the Bible, or both.

It was ratification of the U. S.  Constitution in 1788 that provoked the wrath of God against America.  That wrath long restrained in mercy is now being unleashed.  To call for a return to the very document that caused the offense is the height of folly and can only aggravate the wound.

And so the assumption that a return to the “original intent” of the United States Constitution is equivalent to returning to the law of God is a myth.  MythBusters Rating:  Red Flag to Faith & Freedom Coalition for perpetuating this dangerous myth.  Christians should analyze the writings and pronouncements of this group with great caution.

HistoryMythBusters is pleased to announce creation of our sister BLOG at  Although the site is not yet officially open, it is now possible to visit and view a petition to God which we believe to be of critical importance at this moment in America’s history.

There will soon be an opportunity to add your name online at the BLOG and join with thousands of other Christian Americans in this corporate act of contrition and commitment to return to the law of God in our national life.  You may view the Confession & Petition in its entirety by clicking on the link below:




We the undersigned do hereby confess our culpability and acknowledge our complicity in giving assent and endorsement to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1788. We beg forgiveness of Yahweh Almighty God, the one and only King of kings and Lord of lords, for this sedition against Him and this rebellion against His kingdom in rejecting His law and replacing it with a human code devised from the framers’ own imagination.

MythBusters Case#8 explained our discovery that prayer and fasting is futile apart from such a corporate, oath-bound commitment to return to the law of God.  Such an act of corporate repentance is modeled for us at Nehemiah 10: 28,29:

“…all those who had knowledge and understanding, are joining with their kinsmen, their nobles, and are taking on themselves a curse and an oath to walk in God’s law, which was given through Moses, God’s servant, and to keep and to observe all the commandments of God our Lord, and His ordinances and His statutes.”

A summary of the critical flaws in the United States Constitution may be found at MythBusters Case#12.   There it was demonstrated that the United States Constitution is a secular social contract between men that excludes God and any obligation to His law.

Coming soon is a detailed table, comparing over 75 points at which the United States Constitution contradicts the Bible.  Pastor Ted Weiland has published a new book entitled “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution” that documents these fatal flaws in great detail.

ConstitutionMythBusters will be devoted to exploring these fatal weaknesses.  There is also considerable information along this line at our mother website, which may be accessed by any of the tabs above, in particular the “American Covenant” Tab.

We are grateful that Kirk Cameron has apparently abandoned the fictional pre-millennialism of his early “Left Behind” productions.   In one recent lecture, he did a masterful job of comparing the plot of his “Fire Proof” film to the grand redemptive story that God is telling in history.

Kirk Cameron made it clear that he was talking about “redemptive” not only in the individual sense, but in the sense of God renewing the entire created order under the kingly reign of Christ.  The lecture pointed to the victory of the church in history prior to the second coming, which the Bible clearly foretells in Psalm Two and many other passages.

For example, Is. 2:2 predicts that “…in the last days, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief … and all the nations will stream to it.”  Hebrews 1:2 informs us that the “last days” referred to began with the first advent of Christ.

More recently Kirk Cameron has turned his considerable talents to production of a documentary on American history.   MythBusters’ initial impression was that this project is perpetuating the historical “bait & switch” technique which is so common among the contemporary Christian defenders of 18th Century Federalism.

Further investigation confirmed our initial impression.  This new documentary, “Monumental,” unfortunately is another disappointing addition to the same shop-worn genre of Christian Constitutionalism.  This includes Gary DeMar, David Barton, Peter Marshall, Marshall Foster and a host of others.

MYTH:  The Constitutional framers of 1788 perpetuated the form of Biblical government established by the Puritan forefathers in the 1600s.

This sophisticated bait & switch technique is based on a monumental non-sequitor (pun intended).   First establish the Christian character and Biblical form of government of the early American colonists, which is true and accurate.   This is not difficult to do and is very emotionally and intellectually appealing to a Christian audience.

Most of the colonial constitutions were written covenant documents with the Triune God and required a religious test oath of public officials.  They did not just swear symbolically on the Bible, they swore to the Bible and God an oath to govern by it’s laws.  In some cases – like the Massachusetts Body of Liberties – Mosaic case law is actually written into the document word-for-word.

But then you throw in the non-sequitor.  Draw the illogical conclusion that the drafters of the United States Constitution shared the same faith and vision for Biblical government as the Puritan fathers.  Follow that up with the problematic claim that the United States Constitution is a faithful representation of Biblical principles of Civil Government.

Historical “Bait”

The “Monumental” kick-off cruise of the Northeast coastline is apparently designed to accomplish phase I described above.  According to this promotional piece, the focus of the voyage is to be on Pilgrim America.

Now you can experience Monumental as you join Kirk Cameron, Marshall Foster, and Gary DeMar as they retrace the steps of the forefathers and visit the historical sites, monuments, and locations of the Pilgrims. Every step of the journey will be filled with in-depth teaching, soul-stirring narratives, and unforgettable experiences.

There’s also an unanswered question about the lasting influence of the Puritans.  For a variety of reasons a Declension occurred among the Massachusetts Puritans that left a secularized skeleton of the original colony.   By 1700 the devout Puritan had been transformed into the self-sufficient, and secularized Yankee. Christian Federalists such as Kirk Cameron apparently overlook the unfortunate influence of the Puritan Declension.  The tract goes on to say….

….there’s no question the tiny band of religious outcasts who founded this country hit upon a formula for success that went way beyond what they could have imagined. How else can you explain the fact that they established a nation that has become the best example of civil, economic and religious liberty the world has ever known?  

Even the Great Awakening of the 1740s did not revive Puritanism after the Declension.  The Puritan vision of Christendom as A City Set On A Hill, was not rekindled in the pietistic, individualism that characterized the preaching of the Great Awakening.  Thus, it could not have been passed to the framers of the American Constitution.

Historical “Switch”

The monumental non-sequitor comes at that point in the film itself where the producer  travels to Texas to meet up with David Barton, “the leading expert” on the subject of the founding fathers.  Kirk wants to know if the Framers shared the same faith and vision of the Puritans, apparently unaware of the fact that David Barton is a master of the historical bait and switch.

After an interesting show & tell in David Barton’s library, he leaves with the conclusion that “the founding fathers did not ditch the faith.”  This conclusion is not based on any Biblical analysis of the Constitution itself.  Rather, Kirk Cameron appears to have been overwhelmed by the deluge of secondary source material in the Barton library.

Case Closed:   MythBusters concludes that the  “Monumental” film project is another victim (and now perpetrator) of the historical “bait & switch,” related to the drafters of the United States Constitution.   MythBuster Rating:  Given the proven inaccuracy of his research (cf. August, 2012 Archives), any documentary that relies so heavily on a David Barton interview is automatically awarded the MythBusters’ Red Flag.  Viewers should approach this film with great caution because of  its failure to evaluate the historical data from a Biblical standpoint.

On occasion cars get recalled because of a threat to the physical health of their owners, but it is rare that a book gets recalled because of a threat to the spiritual health of its readers.

Yet that’s exactly what happened to self-proclaimed “Christian history expert” David Barton of Wallbuilders when he recently tried to whitewash the image of Thomas Jefferson for Christian readers. His book, The Jefferson Lies, reputed to expose alleged myths about American founder Thomas Jefferson, was recalled by the publisher August 10.

Nashville based publisher Thomas Nelson cited “historical errors” and stated that “it was in the best interest of our readers to cease its publication and distribution.” The recall was prompted by complaints from a group of conservative scholars and from a group of Cincinnati ministers.

MYTH: Even the most heretic of America’s founders may be enlisted to prove a Biblical worldview in America’s founding documents because they were constrained by the prevailing Christianity in the culture.

For years Wallbuilders’ spin of American history has been an embarrassment to the evangelical church, but David Barton consistently got away with it. Wallbuilders preys on an historically ill-informed Christian public. MythBusters was gratified with the news that they were finally called on the carpet.

As one lay reader admitted before the recall, “…from what I’ve read from the “academic” detractors, I find Barton’s positions to be more compelling. That may be because I want to believe in the goodness of the Founders.”

Wanting to believe the best, most Christians will give groups like Wallbuilders the benefit of the doubt and are consistently misled. Christian apologists for the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution like David Barton typically rely on the supposed Christian convictions of the founders to prove that these are Christian documents.

They seem willing to go to almost any length to create this impression, including attempts to “baptize” the image of even the most heretical of the founders like Jefferson and Franklin. It’s like washing a pig and expecting him to stay clean.

Volumes could be written to demonstrate that Jefferson was no friend of the evangelical church, but MythBusters will summarize just a few points here from our investigation.

  • Jefferson was a self-professed Unitarian and Epicurean. These are hardly philosophies compatible with the Christian religion.
  •  It is not Jefferson that the Left has sought to denigrate as David Barton contends, but rather the Christian conservative caricature of Jefferson, of which Barton is typical. It was after all the New Deal Democrats who adorned the currency and coinage with Jefferson’s profile. They also carved his image in stone at Mt. Rushmore and erected a shrine in his honor at the nation’s capitol.
  • No matter how David Barton tries to sugar-coat it, the fact remains that Thomas Jefferson did excise the miracles of Jesus from the New Testament in his notorious Jefferson Bible. In so doing he stands condemned by the New Testament itself which warns, “if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22;19).
  • Christian leaders of Jefferson’s era were not buying Wallbuilders’ version of Thomas Jefferson.  Pastor Timothy Dwight, president of Yale University, was a prime example of those detractors. During the campaign [of 1800] Dwight took advantage of his pulpit to rain fire and brimstone on Jefferson. He said, “Can serious and reflecting men look about them and doubt that, if Jefferson is elected, those morals which protect our lives from the knife of the assassin, which guard the chastity of our wives and daughters from seduction and violence, defend our property from plunder and devastation and shield our religion from contempt and profanation, will not be trampled upon? For what end? That our churches may become temples of reason, the Bible cast into a bonfire, and that we may see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution?”  (Gregory W. Hamilton, The Revolution of 1800)
  • Most freemasonic organizations claim Jefferson as a leading member of the craft and he was in full sympathy with their revolutionary aims. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Jacobin-inspired French Revolution and endorsed its lawless, bloody purge, which claimed 14,000 victims. He welcomed Citizen Genet to America with the words, “All the old spirit of 1776 is rekindling.” In other words, he saw the same spirit in the American Revolution as that which animated the French.  Citizen Genet is  said to be the guiding force behind the Whiskey Rebellion.
  • The bottom line is that the best assessment of an individual founding father is a careful analysis of what they gave us. For one thing Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence draws its inspiration and authority from the autonomous mind of man (self-evident truth) rather than the Bible. For another, the Bible knows nothing of “inalienable rights,” but rather declares man to be “dead in sin” from conception and responsible to God’s law, with blessing dependent on obedience. The reader is referred to another article on this site for a more in-depth treatment of problems in the Declaration of Independence.

Case Closed: It does nothing for the Kingdom of God to pretend that infidels like Thomas Jefferson were in any way a friend of the church. The very words that Wallbuilders employs in praise of Jefferson – “classical Renaissance man” – are the words that condemn him from a Biblical perspective. The philosophy of the Renaissance was anti-Biblical to the core.

MythBuster Rating:  Blue Flag to Thomas Nelson for integrity in publishing and Wallbuilders gets our Red Flag.  David Barton’s writing should be approached with extreme caution by evangelical readers.

John Eidsmoe’s review of Chris Pinto’s “The  Hidden Faith of  Our Founding Fathers” is typical of the pietistic response to America’s founders for the past 200 years.

This is one more in an endless stream of apologies attempting to prove the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution by demonstrating that the majority of the founding fathers were “real Christians.”   Upon investigation this approach garnered the HistoryMythBusters “yellow flag” rating.

MYTH: If we prove that most of America’s founding fathers were “real Christians” it follows that the U.S. Constitution they drafted is a Christian document.

Even if all of the claims regarding the founders’ personal Christian faith were substantiated, the only thing that matters is the doctrinal integrity of the document that they gave us:  the United States Constitution.  If this principle is not kept front-and-center, the debate inevitably degenerates into a war of quotations.

For example, there are abundant citations on both sides of the question of Washington’s personal Christianity to fill many books.   But the key question is “so what?”, in light of the unbiblical document that Washington gave us in Constitution Hall,

This is like two Israelites arguing – 200 years after Jeroboam set up his golden calves in Israel – whether or not Jeroboam was a true “Christian.”    The question is irrelevant, in light of what Jeroboam actually did to lead Israel away from following God and His law.  Lobbing quotes back and forth is an exercise in futility because Jesus said, “by their fruits you shall know them.”

As Chris Pinto has demonstrated quite effectively in his documentaries, it is very easy to prove by selective quotation that both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi are genuine Christian believers.  Most (but unfortunately not all) Christians are not fooled by these documented quotations because they know their legislative fruits (related to abortion, sodomy, etc).  However, these quotes will no doubt be bandied about by naïve Christians 200 years hence to “prove” the “Christian convictions” of Obama and Pelosi.

To avoid this trap, Christians must constantly remind themselves of the unbiblical nature of the U.S. Constitution.  Pastor Ted Weiland has recently published the first paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the Constitution from a Biblical perspective.  He has documented at least 75 points at which this so-called Christian document is in direct conflict with the Bible.  Here are a few of them:

1) making “we the people” rather than God the source of governing authority. (Preamble)

2) rejecting the Bible in favor of itself (“this constitution”) and all treaties and  human laws “made in pursuance thereof” as “the supreme law of the land.” (Art VI)

3) outlawing all Biblical requirements for public office. (Art VI)

4) contradicting God’s First Commandment to “have no other gods before me” (First Amendment)

In “The Atlantis Connection” Chris Pinto suggests an additional reason why reliance on religious quotations by the founding fathers is problematic. That is the deceptive influence of Rosicrucianism.

According to Chris Pinto, when Elizabeth I assumed the throne in England, the Pope commissioned assassins to eliminate this rising Protestant threat. The intelligence network that united around Elizabeth as a body-guard, also shared esoteric goals that would have been unacceptable to the prevailing Christian culture.

Francis Bacon and his mentor Dr. John Dee were key members of this clandestine coterie. To mask their intentions, they established the Rosicrucian movement, whose icon is a rose (symbol of secrecy) superimposed over a cross. Thus, their writing and speech is a confusing mixture of Christianity and paganism. Nor did they shrink from membership and leadership within the church as a key element in their strategum. From this is derived the term “subrosa”, meaning “in secrecy or confidence” – beneath the rose.

Bacon helped fund and seed the Jamestown expedition with many adventurers of his persuasion in the New World. Many, but not all of the founding fathers were influenced by this spirit, if not formal Rosicrucians, according to Chris Pinto. Franklin was the most egregious example. In many cases this explains their use of Christian terminology, references to Scripture, and church membership, which confuses so many Christians today. Jesus warned us about those who would come to us as wolves in sheep’s clothing.



With most Christian schools — online and offline — charging more than $5,000 annual tuition, a school charging only $500 stands out like a rose among thorns. You heard that right – King’s Way Classical Academy has slashed it’s tuition to only $500 a year. That’s ten cents on the dollar.  It’s even less if you recruit another student you can cut that $500 to just $400.  Go to


Dr. Eidsmoe devotes considerable space to excusing Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoly, which  states that ” …”the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…..”   In spite of all the fancy footwork employed by Dr. Eidsmoe and others to deny the import of the statement, it was never repealed and according to Article VI (noted above) remains “the supreme law of the land.”

Perhaps more perplexing is Dr. Eidsmoe’s admission that “…even if that Article is genuine, there is nothing in that language with which I would disagree.”  In the same paragraph he states that it simply means that “we do not have an ‘established religion’ in the United States.'”  But the all-inclusive nature of Article 11 clearly goes far beyond that.

Moses would never have made such a  statement about the government he established upon the law of God.   Nor would any American official have assented to such a statement  if America was truly founded upon “Christian and Biblical principles” as Dr. Eidsmoe asserts.

This misperception of the nature of Biblical civil government  is also reflected in Dr. Eidsmoe’s assertion that whether one is “fit to be a good citizen or statesman, the question focuses more upon whether his moral values are ocnsistent with those found in the Word of God.”

The problem with that definition  is that it makes Christian government dependent on the fluctuating heart of man rather than the law of God.  This was the approach taken by Abraham Kuyper in Holland and explains why his dramatic cultural reforms died when he died.

The Bible and many of the earlier colonial charters required government officials to be bound by a religious test oath to govern by the Word of God.    As noted above, Article VI of the Constitution outlawed any such oath.

Moreover, Dr. Eidsmoe fails to distinguish between freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.   The First Commandment forbids freedom of religion in terms of public expressions of worship to any false god in a Christian nation.  Elijah showed zero tolerance for the prophets of Baal.  On the other hand, the unbelieving alien (stranger) was given special protected status in Israel and the Israelite was forbidden to coerce him in any way.

Key History MythBuster Findings:

  • When evaluating any historical character find out if what they did lines up with what they said.
  • Be aware of the influence of Rosicrucianism among the intelligencia of Elizabethean England and subsequently the founding fathers in colonial America.
  • Do not ignore the many points at which the United States Constitution is in direct conflict with the Bible.

Case Closed: While impressive in length, Dr. Eidsmoe’s review of Chris Pinto’s “Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers” is seriously flawed.   MythBusters Rating:  Hence our “Yellow Flag” cautionary rating. The review relies primarily on what America’s key founding fathers said, while ignoring what they actually produced. The review naively whitewashes the lack of orthodoxy among many of the key founders. For example, Jefferson’s excising the miracles of Jesus from the New Testament is justified by his supposed interest in “converting the Indians to Christianity.”

Moreover, Eidsmoe stated that “Franklin was a Mason, but there is little evidence that Freemasonry influenced his thinking.” Only if you can swallow the notion that Franklin’s leadership of the Masonic lodge in Philadelphia, initiation of Voltaire into the Nine Sisters lodge in Paris, and his leadership of the London Hell Fire club had no influence on his thinking.

There is much more that could be said of this review, but space does not allow.