TO KILL AMERCANS

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is . So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)

"An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.

An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navajo, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan . The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses. An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God,! not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence , which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.

When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!

As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan . Americans welcome the best of everything...the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services. But they also welcome the least.

The national symbol of America , The Statue of Liberty , welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America .

Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

THEY NEED OUR HELP

Chairmen of the bored: Idle days take toll on disabled vets
By CHRIS VAUGHN
McClatchy Newspapers
Article Launched: 05/24/2008 01:45:12 AM PDT


FORT WORTH, Texas — John Chrzanowski heads to the horse barn first thing in the morning most days.
He brushes, cleans out horseshoes, saddles and then grimaces to get up on top of his favorite, a sand-colored palomino named Sally, to ride around his property east of Dallas. Horses are new to Chrzanowski, who grew up in a Detroit suburb and spent most of his adult life as an Army infantryman.
But a roadside bomb in Iraq ended his combat tour early and left him a very different man, scarred and unfit for continuing duty.
What he was left with is a wife, a baby girl and five horses, all that he has to spend his time on. Every day is a day off.
He would prefer something else to occupy his mind, somewhere to go other than doctor's appointments and the feed store. He's 24 years old and can't fathom the rest of his life spent in leisure.
But no one, not even defense contractors who profit from the war, has expressed interest in hiring him.
"There really isn't much out there for a 24-year-old grunt fresh out of the Army with no college education," he said.
This kind of fallout from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has largely been overshadowed by the more outrageous tales of lapses in military medical care, inadequate death benefits and bureaucratic bungling in the Veterans Affairs Department.
When severely disabled veterans get forced out of the military, as thousands have since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they face the very sobering
realization that they may have nothing more to look forward to than a government check for the rest of their lives.
Government statistics from the Labor Department issued last month state that the unemployment rate in 2007 for disabled veterans from all wars was 3.4 percent and that almost 9 out of 10 disabled Iraq war veterans were working, both of which indicate there is not a problem at all.
Experts in the field, however, say that is not their experience. One recent report prepared by a disability advocacy group for the Army said there are no reliable statistics for the most severely injured, but that their unemployment rate was "staggering."
The government statistics "seem counterintuitive to me," agreed Dave Autry, a spokesman for the Disabled American Veterans group in Washington, D.C. "I don't think those numbers are really reflective of what's happening. Historically, severely disabled veterans have fared less well in the work force, and the higher the disability rating, the higher the unemployment."
Frederick Williams, a former noncommissioned officer in the 1st Cavalry Division with burns, shrapnel wounds and partial deafness and blindness, found out what it was like when he started calling and applying for jobs in Killeen.
He never received a single phone call from the private sector and never received a job offer from any government agency. Eventually, Williams, 46, a Louisiana native, landed a job with a nonprofit company that hires only severely disabled people, a job he loves.
But he hasn't forgotten how the private sector snubbed him.
The American people "don't owe us anything," he said. "This was our decision. But we did stuff they did not want to do, so morally, they should think about that and give us a chance. If we're OK to fight for you, it might be OK for us to work for you."
A week before Christmas last year, the Chrzanowskis closed on a two-story house and 16 acres in Hunt County, a bit north of Greenville.
Neither of them knew much about North Texas. Chrzanowski knew even less about life in the country.
He grew up in a place called St. Clair Shores, a small city outside Detroit and just across Lake St. Clair from Canada.
His wife, Tanis, called Corpus Christi home, 1,300 miles away and a lot closer to the United States' other border.
But after the Air Force had brought Chrzanowski to Texas on June 21, 2005, in the belly of a C-17 transport, so bandaged up he looked like the Michelin man, he couldn't very well leave.
"I wanted to go to Georgia," he said. "But I married a Texan, and they don't take kindly to leaving Texas."
The two met outside a barracks on Fort Sam Houston, where hundreds of sick and injured soldiers and Marines were going through rehabilitation and recovery.
Tanis, a medic in Iraq, had ended up at Brooke Army Medical Center because of a medical problem. Seven months later, they wed in a small and short ceremony at the Bexar County Courthouse, celebrating afterward at a Mexican restaurant on the River Walk with a handful of family members. (Seven months after that, they would ask a Catholic priest to bless their marriage to make it more official with God.)
Chrzanowski went under for 13 surgeries and endured thousands of sessions with rehab specialists. His medical charts coldly described his injuries — 62.5 percent of his body with third-degree burns, 15 percent with second-degree burns.
Only the top of his head, his face and the top of his feet escaped.
Two, sometimes three times a day he would go to rehab, trying to release and stretch the yards of scar tissue that formed all over his body. He still cannot find the words for the pain, only that it was "beyond any human comprehension."
"Bless them, the rehab people never give up on you," he said. "You could cuss them, and they'd always come back."
Twenty-three months after his flight landed in San Antonio, the Army cut Chrzanowski loose and retired him for medical reasons. They also made him a corporal.
"Pity promotion," he said.
Chrzanowski sometimes breaks things around the house so he can fix them.
He bought a boat so he could go fishing. He rides around in his tractor looking for a fence to mend.
When it's too hot outside, or too cold, or too windy, he has to come inside. He will forever be limited in how much exposure he has to extreme weather.
Maybe he will turn on the History Channel or play with his 10-month-old daughter, Audrey.
"I was raised in an old-fashioned family," he said.
"A man goes to work in the morning and comes home in the evening. He provides for his family. But when every day is Saturday ..." His voice trails off.
He won't say it but the truth is that Chrzanowski is bored, physically and mentally. It has been eight months since he has done anything but hang out with his wife and daughter every single day.
But trying to land a job has so far proved fruitless. He worked with job-placement centers, and he sent his resume to businesses in Greenville, McKinney, Bonham and Sherman. He applied for several jobs with area defense contractors L-3 Communications and Raytheon.
If the applications asked about his disability status, he told the truth. If the application didn't ask, he didn't advertise it.
But nothing has come of his job hunting, not an interview, not a phone call.
In the last couple of weeks, Chrzanowski has started to think about college, perhaps at Texas A&M at Commerce. He can see himself getting a degree in social work and helping returning veterans with problems they might have.
"I still would like to serve my country," he said.
He doesn't think he's college material, though. He is worried about whether he can learn in a classroom and do well, and he is concerned that he won't be able to take notes in class because of his hands.
Chrzanowski won't bow, he won't beg and he balks at anyone's pity. He didn't work so hard to live, to father a daughter, to get up on a horse to have it any other way.
"I refuse to let my enemies win," he said. "I can still do everything I could the day before I got hurt. It just takes me a little longer."
Reluctantly, Williams made a phone call one day to a business his wife had heard about.
He was sick of rejection, mad at just about everyone, but he called anyway and left a voice mail.
Later that day, the man called back.
Williams has not been the same since.
When he retired from the military, Williams began to fill out a lot of applications. He called a lot of businesses and talked to managers or human resources directors. He interviewed with a couple of places on Fort Hood.
He dutifully rattled off, either orally or in writing, his limitations — "I can't stand too long. I can't lift much. I can't hear well. I sometimes have memory problems. I can't travel a lot. I have VA appointments." On and on it went.
It was full disclosure to Williams. He wanted to be honest.
For nine months, though, nothing happened.
At first, Williams got mad.
"As much as I gave this country and they won't even give me a chance," he would mumble.
Then, he just flat gave up. He sunk into a depression and found himself needing therapy more and more. "I felt like I was a burden to my family," he said. "I always told my kids, 'Work hard, and you'll get things out of life.' But what kind of example was I."
When the project manager called him back that day in late 2006, Williams once again went through all his special needs.
"He said he'd work with me," Williams said.
Silence.
"What do you mean you'll work with me?" Williams finally said.
Williams is now a valued member of the team at TRDI Inc., a nonprofit company that has a government contract to monitor security at Fort Hood's airfield.
Surrounded by fellow disabled veterans, Williams watches TV screens much of the day, looking for unauthorized vehicles or people in a secure area.
He enjoys a newfound type of camaraderie, almost as good as the Army, he said, because they "ain't got to run."
"I've been in a place where you can't go any lower," he said. "To find a job after what I've been through ... I've overcome it all."

FROM THE AMERICAN THINKER

April 12, 2008

•


The Success of Iraq Policy
By Jim Hall
Contrary to the dominant media narrative, the Iraq war is working out as a global strategic success, albeit not to a comfortable time schedule or cost. A Walter Cronkite-type surrender won't be necessary, this time. America had the strength to endure, analyze, correct and advance the mission. America will be the global can-do superpower once again. Europe and the Middle East have seen this light.

The rough edges of the Iraq war have inspired negative rhetoric and carefully considered judgments that the war has been a total loss. The critics cite the turmoil, scramble, expense and destruction that is part of any large scale military action, and conclude that even minimal amounts war chaos are unacceptable and were unnecessary; any cost is too costly; the effort has been a failure.

Rough edges there have been, all along. But the attempt to proclaim the mission a failure has been inaccurate and shortsighted. It discounts as worthless potential future benefits of a global strategy that were reasonably probable, if not certain. It discounts insurance functions that only poor management of American life and limb would neglect. It discounts the capacity of the American system to plan and build for strategic success, assuming any misstep represents conceptual failure.

The Iraq war had to be conducted in a politically acceptable manner. It was. From Saddam's broken UN resolutions, to GWB's permission slip from the UN and the U.S. Congress, to the offer for Saddam to leave and avoid conflict, to efforts to take out Saddam individually before the larger invasion became a reality, the plan covered most bases.

The problems may well have come from conducting the war with such a degree of political correctness. The administration had to consider so carefully the anticipated concerns of the United Nations and world community. Broken resolutions against that body by Saddam counted for far less than the disapproval of any forceful attempt at enforcement of the resolutions. The UN's low level of respect and perceived effectiveness is well deserved.

The administration considered the concerns of the Iraqi National Congress, a group of concerned Iraqi expatriate experts on abuses by Saddam, and the issues of high priority to most of the sectarian groups in Iraq. It considered historical precedent, including the 1991 invasion, if not matching its coalition members in quantity. It considered concerns of critics who would demand evidence nearly courtroom-tight, before taking forceful means toward resolution enforcement. It considered minimizing collateral damage to greatest extent this concept has ever been considered. The administration considered how to remove Saddam without ground forces ever having to enter the country (take him out in a strategic air strike). It considered, and instructed the Iraqi army on what to do when and if the invasion were to occur, in order to preserve the lives of Iraqi officers and soldiers, and the Iraqi military as an institution.

The administration did not, however, consider the concerns or preferences of the League of Democracies. There isn't one, yet. It didn't consider planning issues related to conquering the country in Nazi lock-down style. It didn't consider a replacement for the entire Iraqi police force in case that Iraqi force proved to be totally incompetent, or even negatively effective. It didn't consider what to do if the advice offered to the Iraqi army went further than planned, to the point of Iraqi soldiers removing their uniforms and going home. It didn't consider installing a new king, as the British had done in 1921, following their forced adoption of the territory after the loss of it by the ruling Ottomans, who joined the German and Austrian empires During WWI. No, the Bush administration did not plan fully, by any means.

With the world being the dangerous place that it is, human freedom and liberty have faced considerable threats over the course of history. Democratic countries often raise armies and elect leaders to engage them when these threats arise. George Bush decided to use the American military, along with many international allies in Iraq, because our own liberty, and western civilization itself, were under threat. It had been since the events of 9/11, since Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, and since many similar but smaller events dating back to 1983 and before.

Have we achieved results worth the effort and expense, both human and financial? Republicans are not sure; they think, probably. Democrats are very sure; they think, no. Iraqis think, yes. Europe thinks, maybe, finally. The Middle East thinks, yes, finally, but will not to say so.

The probably-maybe and yes, finally equivocal evaluations are conditional because the process has taken so long. Republican politicians have to run for election and reelection, and they got legislatively hammered and timed-out in the 2006 mid terms. Their convictions and resolve faltered.

Democrats like it when Republicans falter. They have been firm in their own resolve that the war has been, and is, a disaster. Democrats haven't figured out yet that they are in danger being hammered and timed-out of the 2008 elections due to success in the Iraq war. The Europeans are of the maybe, finally opinion because they are seeing the U.S. success, and because they realize they haven't had to, and don't have to contribute more than their political systems can bear, as determined by near term convenience. But they don't want to incur additional debt to America, even though it would likely be forgiven, anyway.

Europeans are realizing to a greater degree than before the threat imposed by a nuclear Iran. They don't like suicide bomber attacks, they would like even less a nuclear suicide attack. They think the U.S. has the resolve, now, along with the obvious capacity to prevail in the region.

The Middle East thinks yes, finally because Iranian leaders are not conventionally rational. Some Middle East countries are either conventionally rational, or can at least understand conventional rationality. The Gulf States like their new, modern airports, hotels and downtowns. They would like to keep them. This will be easier with the U.S. presence and influence in the Gulf.

Why do the Middle East and Europe think this American effort might be worth it, and probably will be worth it, although won't say so, only just now? Enough time has gone by that both Europe and the Middle East have seen the Bush Administration in action. Described as incompetent, ill-prepared and possibly criminal, the Bush-led coalition conducted a surgical military invasion that was precise, quick, competent and powerful to a degree never before seen in modern history. The Middle East and Europe evaluated the performance on a scale that ranges from imperialist self-serving Nazi style bullies on one end, to mild mannered humanitarian peace keepers at the other. They placed us in some appropriate space between these two extremes.

The United States, leading the coalition of 30 nations, plus the quiet support of 15 more, performed a task impossible under any other leadership. The costs were too great to remain uncriticized on the American home front. It made us all sick. But the U.S. military performed its job, admirably and incredibly. The administration picked and adjusted a strategy that finally worked, under conditions that had to conform to a strict checklist of disqualifiers.

We tried, and succeeded, in not performing a Germany-style take over, as both Bismarck and Hitler did in France. It may have proven cleaner if we would have used these models. But General Jay Garner's mission after the successful initial invasion was to supervise and keep order. It wasn't to conquer, occupy and impose order.

If a Saddam administrative subordinate or two had stepped forward and offered to assume the helm, they could have had the place simply by showing some credentials and cooperation. None took the step. There were none who could. If the Iraqi military would have stepped forward, they could have had the place, with a cooperative attitude and after passing a sanity test. They couldn't and didn't. If Iraqi exiles could have gotten along, gotten organized and gotten together some justification of their ability and evenhandedness, they could have had the place. But they couldn't.

If General Garner could have assumed control and supervised the functioning of existing Iraqi institutions, he would have. But all the Iraqi institutions were broken. It wasn't Jay Garner's fault. No one could have performed that management miracle. There was nothing to work with. Iraqi institutions needed Mukhabarat master mechanics -- the Iraqi Intelligence Service -- to function. Europe and the Middle East saw this.

The U.S.-led coalition had to backpedal and regroup. This job couldn't be done quickly, because there were no administrative Iraqi assets able to function. It would have been nice to have known this. But we didn't. The Iraqi National Congress expatriate experts didn't know it, and neither did anybody else. To be legitimate, the job would have to be done transparently, fairly, and quickly. We were only able to achieve transparency and fairness. We sent in Paul Bremer to establish Iraqi rule that was representative and legitimate in the eyes of Iraq and of the world.

Following WWI, Japan took over several German colonial holdings in China. Japan had permission from the greatest assemblage of world political representatives ever assembled: the Paris Peace Conference, of 1919. But the administrative hand off to Japan was not fair. Bremer would have to accomplish something more acceptable in Iraq than Woodrow Wilson and his European counterparts did at Versailles. He did. There were rough edges aplenty, and the process was brutal on Bremer and his group. They were the best we felt we had available to manage the process. Europe and the Middle East saw this.

Bremer assembled Iraqis who would organize other Iraqis, who would write a constitution, which would be ratified by all Iraqis, and then organize elections that would be voted upon throughout Iraq. The elections would be so fair, and the turnout so great, and the purple fingers and smiling faces of the Iraqi voters so prominent and happy that the world saw and judged with approval. Unbelievably, all of this occurred without the assistance of the best foreign-vote-supervision dignitary we have -- former President Jimmy Carter. The voting did not quell the violence or solve unresolved problems. There would be continued Hell to pay. We paid it. And Europe and the Middle East saw this.

The reconfiguration of Iraq was done well enough that the nature of the region is in the middle of a giant step forward. The Middle East could stumble--it has been clumsy for ever so long. But there are enough conventionally rational political players in this game that the chances of success are decent. The alternative to sure footed stability is tragedy, and on display for all to see in the Palestinian debacle of Gaza and the West Bank. There isn't enough conventional rationality available there to succeed. Rational Palestinians in numbers sufficient to realize when to come in out of the rain have long since departed that land. Its only chance is example, persuasion or pressure by neighbors who are in the position now to take a breath and realize that civilization is more than masses of people living in close proximity.

A League of Democracies might go a long way toward cooperative international efforts at worthwhile global management projects. We had hoped for this with the League of Nations and the United Nations. If John McCain is serious about national security and international communal sanity -- he certainly sounds so -- we might yet look back on Iraq and its reformation with pride, and relief.

SCREW PELOSI AND HER COHORTS

At this rate MY AMERICA will no longer exist.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/04/absolut-arrogance-and-the-advertising-agency-behind-the-reconquista-ad
Better SAVE Than Sorry
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Immigration: Why would nearly 50 Democrats not allow legislation they co-sponsored to get to the House floor for a vote? Because their boss, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, doesn't want meaningful immigration reform that protects our borders.
________________________________________
Read More: Immigration
________________________________________
It's a tad unnatural for House Republicans to be pushing a so-called discharge petition to force a vote on a piece of Democratic legislation. But such is the case with the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement Act, or SAVE, authored by freshman Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina.
Among the bill's key provisions are the addition of 8,000 border patrol agents the next four years and 1,200 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to strengthen interior enforcement and support local law enforcement officers.
Another provision ensures that agents have "high-quality body armor that is appropriate for the climate and risks faced by the agent."
The SAVE Act also provides for the acquirement along the border of advanced technologies, including aerial surveillance systems and infrared technology. It would add 13 more federal judges to hear cases against those who are arrested for breaking into the U.S., including drug traffickers and the wily coyotes paid to transport illegal aliens into this country.
While adding sticks, the act cuts down the number of carrots attracting illegal aliens — illegal employment — by expanding the E-verify program to provide employers with the tools to confirm that prospective employees are legally here. E-verify is a Web-based system to cross-reference Social Security numbers and other pertinent information. Some 56,000 employers already use the system.
The system screens all applicants, so racial profiling is not an issue. As we've noted, in states where local authorities have ramped up enforcement, illegal immigration has declined dramatically, and many of those already here have left under a process some have called self-deportation. The risks soon exceed the benefits.
While the V stands for verification and the E stands for enforcement, the A does not stand for amnesty. This might explain the opposition of the House Democratic leadership.
It deals strictly with sealing the borders first, creating a safe and secure system under which issues such as guest workers and paths to citizenship can be dealt with. The theory is: First, stop the bleeding.
It could be that some of these co-sponsors are not serious, that they want to go before the voters saying they're in favor of protecting our borders knowing the legislation might never see the light of day. Then they can say it's not their fault it's bottled up in committee. Few voters know or care that a discharge petition is a procedure that moves a bill out of committee
The bill has 147 co-sponsors from more than half the states, including 49 Democrats, but Speaker Pelosi is leading the fight to prevent a floor vote. It takes 218 signatures on a discharge petition to force a floor vote, and so far 185 have signed the one on SAVE. Interestingly, only 10 of the original Democratic co-sponsors have done so.
An outraged Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said in support of the discharge petition:
"In just the past year, this (Democratic) majority voted to cut funding for the border fence, opened the door to illegal immigrants to receive taxpayer-funded services without showing proof of citizenship and overturned a successful GOP proposal to prevent taxpayer-funded federal benefits from being awarded to illegal immigrants."
If 33 of the original Democratic co-sponsors of the SAVE Act who have not signed the discharge petition were to do so, the bill would proceed to the floor where serious debate on a major issue could begin. But that would require Democrats' going on record in an election year and doing more than blowing smoke on border security.
/

GENERAL PETRAEUS

Get IBD Editorials Via Email

Email To Friend | Print

Verbatim: Petraeus On The 'Fragile And Reversible' Situation In Iraq

By GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS | Posted Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Following is the testimony delivered Tuesday by Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the security situation in Iraq and to discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command.

Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago, there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq. Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, al-Qaida-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security.

Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain. Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible.

Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional US forces to Iraq.

A number of factors have contributed to the progress that has been made. First, of course, has been the impact of increased numbers of Coalition and Iraqi Forces. You are well aware of the U.S. surge. Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces.

A second factor has been the employment of Coalition and Iraqi Forces in the conduct of counterinsurgency operations across the country, deployed together to safeguard the Iraqi people, to pursue al-Qaida-Iraq, to combat criminals and militia extremists, to foster local reconciliation, and to enable political and economic progress.

Another important factor has been the attitudinal shift among certain elements of the Iraqi population. Since the first Sunni "Awakening" in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected AQI's indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq's bounty if they didn't participate in the political arena.

Over time, Awakenings have prompted tens of thousands of Iraqis — some, former insurgents — to contribute to local security as so-called "Sons of Iraq." With their assistance and with relentless pursuit of al-Qaida-Iraq, the threat posed by AQI — while still lethal and substantial — has been reduced significantly.

The recent flare-up in Basrah, southern Iraq and Baghdad underscored the importance of the ceasefire declared by Moqtada al-Sadr last fall as another factor in the overall reduction in violence. Recently, of course, some militia elements became active again.

Though a Sadr standdown order resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming and directing the so-called Special Groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.

As we look to the future, our task together with our Iraqi partners will be to build on the progress achieved and to deal with the many challenges that remain. I do believe that we can do this while continuing the ongoing drawdown of the surge forces.

The Nature of the Conflict

In September, I described the fundamental nature of the conflict in Iraq as a competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources. This competition continues, influenced heavily by outside actors and its resolution remains the key to producing long-term stability in Iraq.

Various elements push Iraq's ethno-sectarian competition toward violence. Terrorists, insurgents, militia extremists and criminal gangs pose significant threats. Al-Qaida's senior leaders, who still view Iraq as the central front in their global strategy, send funding, direction and foreign fighters to Iraq.

Actions by neighboring states compound Iraq's challenges. Syria has taken some steps to reduce the flow of foreign fighters through its territory, but not enough to shut down the key network that supports AQI. And Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way, through its lethal support to the Special Groups. Finally, insufficient Iraqi governmental capacity, lingering sectarian mistrust, and corruption add to Iraq's problems.

These challenges and recent weeks' violence notwithstanding, Iraq's ethno-sectarian competition in many areas is now taking place more through debate and less through violence. In fact, the recent escalation of violence in Baghdad and southern Iraq was dealt with temporarily, at least, by most parties acknowledging that the rational way ahead is political dialogue rather than street fighting.

Current Situation and Trends

As I stated at the outset, though Iraq obviously remains a violent country, we do see progress in the security arena. For nearly six months, security incidents have been at a level not seen since early-to-mid-2005, though the level did spike in recent weeks as a result of the violence in Basrah and Baghdad. The level of incidents has, however, begun to turn down again, though the period ahead will be a sensitive one.

As our primary mission is to help protect the population, we closely monitor the number of Iraqi civilians killed due to violence. Civilian deaths have decreased over the past year to a level not seen since the February 2006 Samarra Mosque bombing that set off the cycle of sectarian violence that tore the very fabric of Iraqi society in 2006 and early2007. Civilian deaths due to violence have been reduced significantly, though more work clearly needs to be done.

Ethno-sectarian violence is a particular concern in Iraq, as it is a cancer that continues to spread if left unchecked. The number of deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence has fallen since we testified last September. A big factor has been the reduction of ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Some of this decrease is, to be sure, due to sectarian hardening of certain Baghdad neighborhoods; however, that is only a partial explanation as countless sectarian fault lines and numerous mixed neighborhoods still exist in Baghdad and elsewhere. In fact, Coalition and Iraqi Forces have focused along the fault lines to reduce the violence and enable Sunni and Shia leaders to begin the long process of healing in their local communities.

Even though the number of high-profile attacks increased in March as AQI lashed out, the current level of such attacks remains far below its height a year ago. Moreover, as we have helped improve security and focused on enemy networks, we have seen a decrease in the effectiveness of such attacks. The number of deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence, in particular, has remained relatively low, illustrating the enemy's inability to date to re-ignite the cycle of ethno-sectarian violence.

The emergence of Iraqi volunteers helping to secure their local communities has been an important development. There are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq — Shia as well as Sunni — under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads. These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence — not to mention the priceless lives saved — have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts.

Sons of Iraq have also contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons and explosives caches. In fact, we have already found more caches in 2008 than we found in all of 2006. Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we are working closely with the Iraqi Government to transition them into the Iraqi Security Forces or other forms of employment, and over 21,000 have already been accepted into the Police or Army or other government jobs.

This process has been slow, but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully. Al-Qaida also recognizes the significance of the Sons of Iraq, and AQI elements have targeted them repeatedly. However, these attacks — in addition to AQI's use of women, children and the handicapped as suicide bombers — have further alienated AQI from the Iraqi people. And the tenacious pursuit of AQI, together with AQI's loss of local support in many areas, has substantially reduced its capability, numbers, and freedom of movement.

(As for) the cumulative effect of the effort against AQI and its insurgent allies, we have reduced considerably the areas in which AQI enjoys support and sanctuary, though there clearly is more to be done. Having noted that progress, AQI is still capable of lethal attacks, and we must maintain relentless pressure on the organization, on the networks outside Iraq that support it, and on the resource flows that sustain it.

As you can see, defeating al-Qaida in Iraq requires not just actions by our elite counter-terrorist forces, but also major operations by Coalition and Iraqi conventional forces, a sophisticated intelligence effort, political reconciliation, economic and social programs, information operations initiatives, diplomatic activity, the employment of counterinsurgency principles in detainee operations and many other actions.

Related to this effort, I applaud Congress' support for additional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets in the upcoming Supplemental, as ISR is vital to the success of our operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

As we combat AQI, we must remember that doing so not only reduces a major source of instability in Iraq; it also weakens an organization that al-Qaida's senior leaders view as a tool to spread its influence and foment regional instability.

Osama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri have consistently advocated exploiting the situation in Iraq, and we have also seen AQI involved in destabilizing activities in the wider Mideast region. Together with the Iraqi Security Forces, we have also focused on the Special Groups.

These elements are funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Qods Force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital, and requiring Iraqi and Coalition actions in response.

Iraqi and Coalition leaders have repeatedly noted their desire that Iran live up to promises made by President Ahmedinajad and other senior Iranian leaders to stop their support for the Special Groups. However, nefarious activities by the Qods Force have continued, and Iraqi leaders now clearly recognize the threat they pose to Iraq.

We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead, as they will show the kind of relationship Iran wishes to have with its neighbor and the character of future Iranian involvement in Iraq.

Iraqi Security Forces

The Iraqi Security Forces have continued to develop since September, and we have transferred responsibilities to Iraqi Forces as their capabilities and the conditions on the ground have permitted. Half of Iraq's 18 provinces are under provincial Iraqi control. Many of these provinces — not just the successful provinces in the

Kurdish Regional Government area, but also a number of southern provinces — have done well.

Challenges have emerged in some others, including, of course, Basrah. Nonetheless, this process will continue, and we expect Anbar and Qadisiyah Provinces to transition in the months ahead.

Iraqi Forces have grown significantly since September, and over 540,000 individuals now serve in the Iraqi Security Forces. The number of combat battalions capable of taking the lead in operations, albeit with some Coalition support, has grown to well over 100. These units are bearing an increasing share of the burden, as evidenced by the fact that Iraqi Security Force losses have recently been three times our own.

We will, of course, conduct careful after-action reviews with our Iraqi partners in the wake of recent operations, as there were units and leaders found wanting in some cases, and some of our assessments may be downgraded as a result. Nonetheless, the performance of many units was solid, especially once they got their footing and gained a degree of confidence, and certain Iraqi elements proved quite capable.

Underpinning the advances of the past year have been improvements in Iraq's security institutions. An increasingly robust Iraqi-run training base enabled the Iraqi Security Forces to grow by over 133,000 soldiers and police over the past 16 months. And the still-expanding training base is expected to generate an additional 50,000 Iraqi soldiers and 16 Army and Special Operations battalions throughout the rest of 2008, along with over 23,000 police and eight National Police battalions.

Additionally, Iraq's security ministries are steadily improving their ability to execute their budgets. In 2007, as in 2006, Iraq's security ministries spent more on their forces than the United States provided through the Iraqi Security Forces Fund (ISFF).

We anticipate that Iraq will spend over $8 billion on security this year and $11 billion next year, and this projection enabled us recently to reduce significantly our Iraqi Security Forces Fund request for fiscal year 2009 from $5.1 billion to $2.8 billion.

While improved, Iraqi Security Forces are not yet ready to defend Iraq or maintain security throughout the country on their own. Recent operations in Basrah highlight improvements in the ability of the Iraqi Security Forces to deploy substantial numbers of units, supplies and replacements on very short notice; they certainly could not have deployed a division's worth of Army and Police units on such short notice a year ago.On the other hand, the recent operations also underscored the considerable work still to be done in the areas of logistics, force enablers, staff development, and command and control.

We also continue to help Iraq through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program. As of March 2008, the Iraqi government has purchased over $2 billion worth of equipment and services of American origin through FMS. Since September, and with your encouragement of the organizations in the FMS process, delivery has improved as the FMS system has strived to support urgent wartime requirements.

On a related note, I would ask that Congress consider restoring funding for the International Military Education and Training Program, which supports education for mid- and senior-level Iraqi military and civilian leaders and is an important component of the development of the leaders Iraq will need in the future.

Upcoming Challenges

While security has improved in many areas, and the Iraqi Security Forces are shouldering more of the load, the situation in Iraq remains exceedingly complex and challenging. Iraq could face a resurgence of AQI or additional Shia groups could violate Moqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire order and return to violence. External actors, like Iran, could stoke violence within Iraq, and actions by other neighbors could undermine the security situation as well.

Other challenges result, paradoxically, from improved security, which has provided opportunities for political and economic progress and improved services at the local, provincial and national levels. But the improvements have also created expectations that progress will continue.

In the coming months, Iraq's leaders must strengthen governmental capacity, execute budgets, pass additional legislation, conduct provincial elections, carry out a census, determine the status of disputed territories and resettle internally displaced persons and refugees. These tasks would challenge any government, much less a still developing government tested by war.

The Commander's Emergency Response Program, the State Department's Quick Response Fund, and USAID programs enable us to help Iraq deal with its challenges. To that end, I respectfully ask that you provide us by June the additional CERP funds requested in the Supplemental.

These funds have an enormous impact. As I noted earlier, the salaries paid to the Sons of Iraq alone cost far less than the cost savings in vehicles not lost due to the enhanced security in local communities. Encouragingly, the Iraqi government recently allocated $300 million for us to manage as "Iraqi CERP" to perform projects for their people, while building their own capacity to do so.

The Iraqi government has also committed $163 million to gradually assume Sons of Iraq contracts, $510 million for small business loans and $196 million for a Joint Training, Education and Reintegration Program. The Iraqi government pledges to provide more as they execute the budget passed two months ago. Nonetheless, it is hugely important to have our resources continue, even as Iraqi funding begins to outstrip ours.

Recommendations

Last month I provided my chain of command recommendations for the way ahead in Iraq. During that process, I noted the objective of retaining and building on our hard-fought security gains while we draw down to the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams. I emphasized the need to continue work with our Iraqi partners to secure the population and to transition responsibilities to the Iraqis as quickly as conditions permit, but without jeopardizing the security gains that have been made.

As in September, my recommendations are informed by operational and strategic considerations.

* The operational considerations include recognition that:
* The military surge has achieved progress, but that the progress is reversible.
* Iraqi Security Forces have strengthened their capabilities but still must grow further.
* The provincial elections in the fall, refugee returns, detainee releases and efforts to resolve provincial boundary disputes and Article 140 issues will be very challenging.
* The transition of Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi Security Forces or other pursuits will require time and careful monitoring.
* Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year.
* Performing the necessary tasks in Iraq will require sizable conventional forces as well as special operations forces and advisor teams.

The strategic considerations include recognition that:

* The strain on the US military, especially on its ground forces, has been considerable.
* A number of the security challenges inside Iraq are also related to significant regional and global threats.
* A failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against al-Qaida, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq and for the effort to counter malign Iranian influence.

After weighing these factors, I recommended to my chain of command that we continue the drawdown of the surge combat forces and that, upon the withdrawal of the last surge brigade combat team in July, we undertake a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation.

At the end of that period, we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions. This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit.

This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable; however, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve.

With this approach, the security achievements of 2007 and early 2008 can form a foundation for the gradual establishment of sustainable security in Iraq. This is not only important to the 27 million citizens of Iraq; it is also vitally important to those in the Gulf region, to the citizens of the United States and to the global community.

It clearly is in our national interest to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of al-Qaida in the heart of the Arab world, to help Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its sovereignty, to avoid renewed ethno-sectarian violence that could spill over Iraq's borders and make the existing refugee crisis even worse and to enable Iraq to expand its role in the regional and global economies.

Closing Comments

In closing, I want to comment briefly on those serving our nation in Iraq. We have asked a great deal of them and of their families, and they have made enormous sacrifices. My keen personal awareness of the strain on them and on the force as a whole has been an important factor in my recommendations.

The Congress, the Executive Branch and our fellow citizens have done an enormous amount to support our troopers and their loved ones, and all of us are grateful for that. Nothing means more to those in harm's way than the knowledge that their country appreciates their sacrifices and those of their families.

Indeed, all Americans should take great pride in the men and women serving our nation in Iraq and in the courage, determination, resilience and initiative they demonstrate each and every day.

It remains the greatest of honors to soldier with them.

Thank you very much.

Email To Friend | Print | View All Editorials | Search

Back To Top

MORE ON MR HESTON

Wayne LaPierre: Heston Was a Great Patriot

Monday, April 7, 2008 11:31 AM Article Font Size


CHARLETON HESTON
Statement of Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America:
Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston. America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.
My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.
And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us - the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause as I am to have known him as my friend.
But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers, and they will always have my friendship.

Charlton Heston: Courage and Honor
Charlton Heston was one of the greatest movie stars who ever lived.
He, of course, played the larger-than-life Moses in Cecil B. DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments.” Things don’t get too much bigger than that in Hollywood.
His life was filled with political fervor, too. Second nature, I guess; caring about the country and having the strength of character to actually put thoughts, words and feelings into motion.
Heston supported Democrats Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy and stood alongside Martin Luther King, Jr. in Washington, D.C.
Even though he opposed the Vietnam War, Heston made it a point to visit the troops, look into the faces, grip the hands, ease the load, if only for the moment.
At one point he changed party labels and took on the GOP designation. He became a champion of civil liberties, spurred on by the Robert Bork battle and Bork’s eventual denial of a Supreme Court seat.
Heston became a foot soldier in the fight against political correctness, which he referred to as “tyranny with manners.”
Despite the media and their railing against him, in the 1960s Heston held fast to his civil rights activist promptings. And in the 1990s he upheld “freedom in the truest sense” with his Second Amendment advocacy.
Like dust from a chariot wheel, Heston brushed off the personal attacks of his opponents. “I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 — long before Hollywood found it fashionable,” he said.
When in a speech he tried to make a point about the concept of pride of heritage, black, white or red, he was called a racist. When on another occasion he took exception to the idea of having special rights based on sexual orientation, he was labeled a homophobe. These are only two of the many blows he suffered in the line of free speech duty.
Still, he remained undeterred in expressing his ideas and beliefs in the public arena.
Heston saw parallels between America of the 1990s and ancient Rome, disturbed by the societal signals he perceived especially in the entertainment realm. “Our culture has replaced the bloody arena fights of ancient Rome with stage fights on TV with Sally, Ricki, Jerry, Jenny and Rosie,” he lamented.
Despite risk to career and legacy, he admonished the Hollywood community, telling them, “We see films made that diminish the American experience and example. And sometimes trash it completely.”
Summing up his professional life, Heston said, “I've played three presidents, three saints and two geniuses and that's probably enough for any man.”
Not just any man, an American archetype.
Go rest high upon the mountain, Chuck.

A TRUE HERO AND VETERAN

Culture Links
The e-mail newsletter of the Culture and Media Institute

April 8, 2008 | Volume 2, Issue 14

To ensure delivery, add cmi@mail.mediaresearch.org to your safe senders list


Culture and Media Institute

Forward to a Friend | Subscribe







No Forgiving Charlton Heston

by Brian Fitzpatrick, Senior Editor, Culture and Media Institute



My grandfather was a college football star who even played for the NFL champs back in 1928, so I was looking forward to seeing George Clooney’s new 1920s football movie, Leatherheads, this weekend. That’s before I found out how Clooney, like many lefties in Hollywood and the news media, had treated the late Charlton Heston.



Clooney’s offense took place a few years back. According to Life Site News, “For his conservative stands, however, Heston was attacked and reviled by his Hollywood colleagues. In 2003 actor and leftist political activist George Clooney joked about Heston’s illness [Alzheimer’s disease], and, after Heston criticized him for the remark, he retorted, 'I don’t care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him.'”



Making fun of somebody with Alzheimer’s disease and feeling no remorse is about as low as it gets, but it isn’t all that surprising in this case. To Clooney, Heston’s embrace of conservative orthodoxy on the Second Amendment made him worse than persona non grata. He became subhuman, not even deserving of the most basic courtesies.



George Clooney can only dream of rivaling Charlton Heston’s life accomplishments. Let’s leave aside the leading roles in some of the greatest movies ever made, the acting laurels and the celebrity, and look at the man:



* Married to his college sweetheart, Lydia, for 64 years.
* Beloved father of two successful children, one a Hollywood director.
* Unabashed Christian and church attender.
* First among his peers; President of the Screen Actors Guild a record six times.
* Served his country in World War II as a B-25 crewman..
* Campaigner for civil rights; protested as early as 1961, long before it became popular, and marched on Washington alongside Dr. Martin Luther King.
* Protector of the unborn; provided the introduction for Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s great pro-life film, Silent Scream.
* Champion of public decency; shamed Time Warner into dropping rapper Ice-T’s contract because of his song celebrating the murder of police officers.
* Defender of individual liberty; President of the National Rifle Association.



Ask Heston which of his accomplishments he treasured most, and he’d probably point to this tribute from his family: “Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life…. We knew him as an adoring husband, a kind and devoted father, and a gentle grandfather with an infectious sense of humor. He served these far greater roles with tremendous faith, courage and dignity.”



Sadly, many in the liberal news media wear ideological blinders that render them incapable of appreciating the entirety of Charlton Heston. In spite of Heston’s admirable private life, sterling character and spectacular career, some journalists could only see Heston waving a musket in the air at the 2000 NRA convention and growling, “Out of my cold, dead hands.” They saw Heston’s pro-gun stance as beyond the pale, as if it were morally reprehensible to stand up for the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. (For a study of media bias against the Second Amendment, see “The Media Assault on the Second Amendment” in Related Stories.) Heston’s death this past Saturday has allowed them to express hostility similar in kind, if not in tone or degree, to Clooney.



* ABC’s Barbara Walters: “He is very controversial or was because of his support of NRA.”
* ABC’s Dan Harris: “As President of the National Rifle Association, he became one of the most polarizing figures in American politics.”
* CBS’s Russ Mitchell: “Once the quintessential big screen hero, in his later years he drew as much attention for his controversial politics.”
* AP’s David Germain: a “fierce gun-rights advocate.”



Not “principled” or “passionate.” Just “fierce.” Charlton Heston was “polarizing” and “controversial” because he refused to toe the line of political correctness.



Heston began his public activism as a liberal, backing Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and Kennedy in 1960. In 1963 he marched with Martin Luther King Jr., but he supported Barry Goldwater in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1980. The apparent transformation was mostly superficial, though, a question of party labels. USA Today didn’t quite get it right: “Heston, like Reagan, claimed the Democratic Party left him while his values remained the same – a personal sea change that by the Reagan ’80s had turned Heston into one of the most prominently public Republicans.”



What “personal sea change?” Though he grew on some issues (notably, the Second Amendment), Heston’s core values, his support for individual liberties from civil rights to life to self-defense, were consistent throughout. “Liberalism” changed, not Charlton Heston.



I met Heston once, in an elevator on the way to a gathering of Hollywood conservatives. No, the meeting wasn’t held in the elevator. Instead of asking him how he parted the Red Sea, I brought up a Second Amendment essay he’d recently written. Engaging his mind, rather than his celebrity, delighted him. He was affable, unpretentious and witty, and he clearly had the courage of his convictions.



After forcing Time Warner to cut its ties with Ice-T over the Cop Killer album by reading aloud the lyrics at a corporate stockholders’ meeting, Heston quipped, “Still, I’m proud of what I did, though now I’ll surely never be offered another film by Warner, or get a good review from Time. On the other hand, I doubt I’ll get a traffic ticket very soon.” Now there’s a man Kipling would be proud of.


This weekend you won’t catch me dead at that Clooney movie. I think I’ll head for the rifle range instead, then crank up the home theater and enjoy my brand new DVD of Ben Hur.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD!

This is for those modern day "liberals"/atheists/left wing nuts, etc etc who want us all to to believe that this nation was not "founded under God" by Christians. Revisionists is another word that fits those who would deny and denigrate our history.

This Nation was founded under God/Divine Creator by men who were primarily Christians.
They were true liberals in that they upset some very conservative apple carts. I look upon the modern day Conservatives as the champions and protectors of what those brave men brought about at the risk of their lives, liberty and property. Had they lost we might very well still be speaking The King's English. But they could not lose because they were a unique group of individuals and intellectuals meeting at the right time in history and the right place on Planet Earth. Never before, and never since, that time have those very propitious circumstances taken place. Just as Planet Earth was not created by pure dumb chance, neither was this great nation of ours. God, the Divine Creator of us all, played the dominant role.

Todays 'liberals', with their roots in the 1930's world events and history, would destroy that which was wrought on the shores of this nation. Bought and paid for by the blood, sweat, tears, toil and deaths of good honest American patriots.

The Declaration of Independence








IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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 their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
________________________________________
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton




Religious Affiliation of the
Founding Fathers
of the United States of America

Related Pages:
- Religious Affiliation of First U.S. Congress
- Religious Affiliation of the Modern U.S. Congress
- Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents
- Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court

On this Page:
- signers of the Declaration of Independence
- signers of the Articles of Confederation
- Constitutional Convention delegates including signers of the U.S. Constitution
Ennumerating the Founding Fathers
The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)
There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.
There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
Founding
Fathers % of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
NOTES: The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.

In the table above, some people have been counted more than once because they changed religious affiliation from one denomination to another. Thus, the individual amounts added together total more than 100%. This method is used because it results in accurate numbers for each individual religious affiliation. For example, a total of 7 Quakers are shown in the table above. There were indeed 7 Quakers who were in this group. (However, not all of these were life-long Quakers.) For the most part, very few Founding Fathers switched denomination during their lifetime (less than 8%), so double-counting has occurred only rarely in this table. Quakers, in fact, are more likely to have switched denominations than members of any other religious denomination. Along with taking up arms and supporting military action against the British, a large proportion of Quaker Founding Father officially renounced or were expelled from the ardently pacifistic denomination they had been raised in and joined another denomination (usually Episcopalianism).

Also, note that the proportions shown (percentage of each religious affiliation out of the total group of Founding Fathers) is the proportion out of Founders whose religious affiliation is known. The religious affiliation of a significant number of signers of the Articles of Confederation is not known, but if that information was available, it is expected that such information would not change the overall proportions signifcantly.
________________________________________


Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence
Religious Affiliation # of
signers % of
signers
Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 2 3.6%
Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%
Catholic 1 1.8%
TOTAL 56 100%

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic

Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist

Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist

William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist

Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist

Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist

Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist

John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist

Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist

William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist

William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist

John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian

Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian

George Walton Georgia Episcopalian

John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian

George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian

Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian

Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian

Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian

Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian

Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian

Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian

George Read Delaware Episcopalian

Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian

Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian

William Paca Maryland Episcopalian

Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian

Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian

Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian

Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian

Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian

William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian

Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian

John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian

Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian

Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian

Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian

Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian

George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian

Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)

Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)

Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist

James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian

Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian

George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian

Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian

Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian

Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian

John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian

Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian

John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian

William Floyd New York Presbyterian

Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian

James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian

George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian

Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian


The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.
These signers have long inspired deep admiration among both secularists (who appreciate the non-denominational nature of the Declaration) and by traditional religionists (who appreciate the Declaration's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated by the document). Lossing's seminal 1848 collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence echoed widely held sentiments held then and now that there was divine intent or inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Lossing matter-of-factly identified the signers as "instruments of Providence" who have "gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land."
From: B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], pages 7-12:
From no point of view can the Declaration of American Independence, the causes which led to its adoption, and the events which marked its maintenance, be observed without exciting sentiments of profound veneration for the men who were the prominent actors in that remarkable scene in the drama of the world's history...
The signing of that instrument was a solemn act, and required great firmness and patriotism in those who committed it... neither firmness nor patriotism was wanting in that august body...
Such were the men unto whose keeping, as instruments of Providence, the destinies of America were for the time intrusted; and it has been well remarked, that men, other than such as these,--an ignorant, untaught mass, like those who have formed the physical elements of other revolutionary movements, without sufficient intellect to guide and control them--could not have conceived, planned, and carried into execution, such a mighty movement, one so fraught with tangible marks of political wisdom, as the American Revolution...
Their bodies now have all returned to their kindred dust in the grave, and their souls have gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land.
From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1975), pages 27-28:
Liberally endowed as a whole with courage and sense of purpose, the signers [of the Declaration of Independence] consisted of a distinguished group of individuals. Although heterogeneous in background, education, experience, and accommplishments, at the time of the signing they were practically all men of means and represented an elite cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Everyone one of them of them had achieved prominence in his colony, but only a few enjoyed a national reputation.
The signers were those individuals who happened to be Delegates to Congress at the time... The signers possessed many basic similarities. Most were American-born and of Anglo-Saxon origin. The eight foreign-born... were all natives of the British Isles. Except for Charles Carroll, a Roman Catholic, and a few Deists, every one subscribed to Protestantism. For the most part basically political nonextremists, many at first had hesitated at separation let alone rebellion.
________________________________________


Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Articles of Confederation
Religious Affiliation # of
signers % of
signers
Episcopalian/Anglican 14 29%
Congregationalist 9 19%
Presbyterian 4 8%
Catholic 1 2%
Quaker 1 2%
Huguenot 1 2%
Lutheran 1 2%
Protestant, denomination unknown 18 38%
TOTAL 48 100%

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic

Andrew Adams Connecticut Congregationalist

Richard Hutson South Carolina Congregationalist

Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist

Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist

William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist

John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist

Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist

Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist

Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist

Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian

John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian

Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian

Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian

Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian

Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian

John Banister Virginia Episcopalian

James Duane New York Episcopalian

Edward Langworthy Georgia Episcopalian

Gouverneur Morris New York Episcopalian

Nicholas Van Dyke Delaware Episcopalian

Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian

Cornelius Harnett North Carolina Episcopalian (Deist)

John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian

Henry Laurens South Carolina Huguenot

John Hanson Maryland Lutheran

Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian

John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian

John Walton Georgia Presbyterian

Nathaniel Scudder New Jersey Presbyterian

William Clingan Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown

Joseph Reed Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown

Daniel Roberdeau Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown

Jonathan Bayard Smith Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown

Francis Dana Massachusetts Protestant, denomination unknown

Samuel Holten Massachusetts Protestant, denomination unknown

James Lovell Massachusetts Protestant, denomination unknown

Henry Marchant Rhode Island Protestant, denomination unknown

John Collins Rhode Island Protestant, denomination unknown

Thomas Adams Virginia Protestant, denomination unknown

John Harvie Virginia Protestant, denomination unknown

John Mathews South Carolina Protestant, denomination unknown

William Henry Drayton South Carolina Protestant, denomination unknown

William Duer New York Protestant, denomination unknown

Titus Hosmer Connecticut Protestant, denomination unknown

Edward Telfair Georgia Protestant, denomination unknown

John Wentworth Jr. New Hampshire Protestant, denomination unknown

John Williams North Carolina Protestant, denomination unknown


________________________________________


Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the
Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America
There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document.
From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138:
Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.
Religious Affiliation # of
delegates % of
delegates
Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%
TOTAL 55 100%

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic

Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic

Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist

Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist

John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist

Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist

Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian

William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian

James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian

George Read Delaware Episcopalian

Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian

David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian

Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian

Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian

Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian

John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian

Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian

Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian

George Washington Virginia Episcopalian

Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)

William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian

James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian

Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist

Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran

William Few Georgia Methodist

Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist

Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian

James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian

William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian

William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian

Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian

Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian

Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian

Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian

John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian

John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian

George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian

Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran


Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist

Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist

John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed

Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed

William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian

William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian

Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian

John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian

Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian

George Mason Virginia Episcopalian

Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian

George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian

James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian

William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian

William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian

Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian


________________________________________
Multiple Roles
Of course, virtually all of the "Founding Fathers" had multiple roles in the formation of the country, in the broad sense that takes into account military leadership, financial sponsorship, various miscellaneous state and federal positions, etc. But there were many individuals who had multiple roles among categories of Founding Fathers enumerated on this page. That is, they signed more than one of the foundational documents (the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution) or they signed one (or more) of these documents and also served in the First Federal Congress. These individuals with "multiple roles" were: Abraham Baldwin; Benjamin Franklin; Charles Carroll; Daniel Carroll; Elbridge Gerry; Francis Lewis; Francis Lightfoot Lee; George Clymer; George Read; Gouverneur Morris; Hugh Williamson; James Wilson; John Dickinson; John Hancock; John Penn; John Witherspoon; Josiah Bartlett; Nicholas Gilman; Oliver Wolcott; Pierce Butler; Richard Bassett; Richard Henry Lee; Robert Morris; Roger Sherman; Rufus King; Samuel Adams; Samuel Huntington; Thomas Fitzsimons; Thomas Heyward Jr.; Thomas McKean; William Ellery; William Few; William Floyd; William Paterson; William Samuel Johnson; James Madison Jr.; John Langdon; Caleb Strong; Oliver Ellsworth; George Wythe.
________________________________________
Please submit suggestions, comments, corrections, etc. to webmaster@adherents.com.
Religion of Founding Fathers / religious affiliation of American Founding Fathers webpage created 4 November 2005. Last modified 7 December 2005.