Liberty Letters

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due, Benjamin Franklin

2006-10-13T15:18:00.000-07:00

Regarding his life-saving, property-saving invention of the lightning rod: "It has pleased God in His goodness to mankind at length to discover to them the means of securing their habitations and other buildings from mischief by thunder and lightning." -- Benjamin Franklin

Meanwhile, North Korea Was Building a Nuke, by Christopher G. Adamo

2006-10-12T07:44:00.000-07:00

The dust has yet to settle in the wake of a possible North Korean nuclear weapon test, and accounts of the nature of the event differ greatly. Stories of the detonation range from its being a success, yielding up to 20 kilotons of energy, to the possibilities of a “dud” that delivered less than one kiloton of firepower.

And being that this is, after all, the North Koreans with whom we are dealing, the prospect cannot be discounted that the entire episode was an enormous hoax, perpetrated with a massive quantity of conventional explosives by which North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il was hoping to convince the world that his nation is indeed a nuclear power.

Yet no matter what the final assessment of the event, once all of the data is sifted and analyzed, it is inarguable that the little tyrant aspires to an increasingly aggressive and intimidating position on the world stage. Furthermore, whether his ability to wage a nuclear attack on his enemies is a grim current reality, or a looming inevitability, no doubt exists as to his obsessive desire to do so, and his commitment to that end.

In any case, the nightmare does not stop there. Both his nervous neighbors and his twisted “admirers” on the world scene are watching the situation closely. And their reaction to his brazen and defiant determination does not portend well for the stability of Western Civilization.

The general impotence of world reaction to Kim Jong Il has undoubtedly emboldened the leaders of Iran. And it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy will renege on his former decision to discontinue his own pursuit of nuclear weapons, which he made in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Yet among Democrats and the liberal press, little of any substance is being reported on the event. And that in itself is extremely telling. Certainly, those on the left are no more desirous for America to sound a clarion call over this danger than were they anxious for the network news to replay images of helpless people jumping from the World Trade Center towers as they burned.

Both would only serve to remind Americans of just how horribly these situations were bungled by the Democrats, and such a stark dose of reality simply cannot be allowed this close to an election.

So, once again, those on the left prove their ultimate indifference to the fate of the nation, as they seek to play down the danger, thus allowing too many Americans to bask in ignorance. And in so doing they show how philosophically corrupt and unfit they are to be allowed to retake the reins of power while America faces such challenges to its future.

This is no time for such games. But then again, neither were the past dozen or so years, when the enemies of America amassed their forces against this nation, while the Democrats either ignored or denied them. At a time when the Clinton Administration was able to take decisive action in order avert the present situation, a decision was made instead to seek the sort of “diplomatic solution” that would provide great photo-ops, and would look good on the evening news. Allowing the danger to grow unchecked, Bill Clinton gambled correctly that the day of reckoning would come on somebody else’s watch.

So, Clinton, abetted by the likes of Madeline Albright and Jimmy Carter, took credit for brokering a deal that actually placed the critical components of a nuclear bomb in the hands of North Korea’s crazed leaders. Amazingly, they committed this foolish act on the grounds that they had assurances from North Korea that it would not use such technology to build a bomb.

When George Bush invaded Iraq, he did so in part as a result of his belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Ever since, those on the left have incessantly excoriated the President for going to war under false pretenses.

But what was the actual result of that faulty analysis? A dangerous and plotting dictator was removed from power, and millions of Iraqis who had once been mobilized as enemies of the free world are now seeking to establish a safe, stable, and benign democracy. Ultimately, a vile enemy of America no longer exists.

In contrast, as the result of a faulty “analysis” of the North Korean situation, and a naive reliance on liberal philosophizing by the Clinton Administration, North Korea, with American help, may now have nuclear capability.

Bill Clinton’s minions can continually attempt to recast his “legacy” as one that raised America’s stature in the eyes of the world. Yet throughout his tenure, those who were bent on the destruction of our nation were laughing. And we may have only begun to pay the price.

Liberty Letters Comment: Astute analysis on Clinton Administration culpability and Democrat hypocrisy. On the other hand, the Republicans dominated Congress during that Administration, and yet did nothing to check the Clinton Administration in its wrong headed policy toward North Korea. As was the case on so many other betrayals of principle and common sense, they proved themselves unworthy of performing the conservative check on liberalism they purport to offer. So why the shock and horror over Korea on either side of the aisle? Both Democrat and Republican alike are equally culpable.

The first government - the family, Benjamin Franklin

2006-10-10T11:43:00.000-07:00

Marriage, or an union of the sexes, though it be in itself one of the smallest societies, is the original fountain whence the greatest and most extensive governments have derived their beings. - Benjamin Franklin

Liberty Letters comment. Just a reminder of the very foundation of government, and why it is the state has an interest in protecting marriage and family - that is, because the state sprang from thence, as its aid. It is ironic, therefore, and alarming as well, that in our day powerful political lobbies labor to employ the state to the overthrow of traditional marriage and the family. What and who then will the state uphold and represent but debauchery and the debauched; and to what purpose, but the overthrow of civilization as we have come to know it?
Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

On Marriage and Impertinent Bagatelles, Benjamin Franklin

2006-10-10T11:37:00.000-07:00

Married persons should avoid petty quarrellling. "What fermentations and heats often arise from breaking of china, disordering a room, dinner not being ready at a precise hour, and a thousand other such impertinent bagatelles. These sort of matrimonial squabbles put one in mind of a little venomous insect they have in the West Indies, like a gnat, who when they bite create a great itching, which if scratched, raises an inflamation so malignant that a leg has been lost by it, and sometimes mortifications ensue that have been attended with death. -- Benjamin Franklin, "Reflections on Courtship and Marriage," 1746

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

On Sin, Benjamin Franklin

2006-10-10T11:30:00.000-07:00

Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful. - Ben Franklin, Poor Richard, 1739

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

University of Wisconsin Bans Christian Club for being Christian - Club Sues

2006-10-09T09:40:00.000-07:00

A Christian organization has filed a federal lawsuit against the University of Wisconsin-Superior, asking that the campus chapter of the group be reinstated and allowed to apply religious criteria in selecting its leaders. In February, the campus chapter of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in Superior, Wisconsin, was told by school officials that because it required its club officers to be Christian, it would no longer be officially recognized by the university. InterVarsity leaders are required to "sign a statement of faith" and "agree to live in accordance with it," according to an InterVarsity spokesman. The school claimed that requirement violated the University of Wisconsin's anti-discrimination policy. InterVarsity-Superior, however, contends in it lawsuit that UW's position denies any religious organization the ability to maintain its own identity. In an interview with Associated Press, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship president Alec Hill says it implies restrictions on other clubs as well -- such as vegetarians. "The Vegans have to accept meat-eaters as leaders?" he wonders. "I mean, if you're going to have a meaningful group and [one] that takes a viewpoint, it only makes sense that the student leaders subscribe to that viewpoint."

Source: Agape Press

Liberty Letters comment: The evidence grows that academia is not neutral but hostile toward religion, and that the only way that we can guarantee religious freedom and freedom of speech is to prohibit the state, as the Constitution requires, from prohibiting free religious expression in public settings.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Monarchy, and Other Dictatorial Forms, Against Nature, Samuel Rutherford

2006-10-06T12:25:00.000-07:00

Vasquius said well,[3] That princedom, empire, kingdom, or jurisdiction hath its rise from a positive and secondary law of nations, and not from the law of pure nature. 1st, The law saith[4] there is no law of nature agreeing to all living creatures for superiority; for by no reason in nature hath a boar dominion over a boar, a lion over a lion, a dragon over a dragon, a bull over a bull: and if all men be born equally free, as I hope to prove, there is no reason in nature why one man should be king and lord over another; therefore while I be otherwise taught by the aforeside Prelate Maxwell, I conceive all jurisdiction of man over man to be as it were artificial and positive, and that it inferreth some servitude whereof nature from the womb hath freed us, if you except that subjection of children to parents, and the wife to the husband;...

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

An Educated and Moral People, Vital to Liberty, George Washington

2006-10-06T11:58:00.000-07:00

Nor am I less persuaded, that you will agree with me in opinion, that there is nothing, which can better deserve your patrionage, than the promotion of Science and Literature. Knowledge is in every Country the surest basis of public happiness. In one, in which the measures of Government recieve their impression so immediately from the sense of the Community as in our's, it is proportionably essential. To the security of a free Constitution it contributes in various ways: By convincing those, who are entrusted with the public administration, that every valuable end of Government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people: And by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of Society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness, cherishing the first, avoiding the last, and uniting a speedy, but temperate vigilence against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to Seminaries of Learning already established--by the institution of a national University--or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the Legislature. -- George Washington, 1st Annual Address to Congress, 8 January 1790

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

House divided must fall, George Washington

2006-09-29T11:49:00.000-07:00

Your Letter of the 18th descriptive of the jealousies and uneasinesses which exist among the Members of Congress is really alarming -- if the House is divided, the fabrick must fall, and a few Individuals perish in the Ruins - General George Washington, to Joseph Reed, April 23, 1776

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

GOP Doesn’t Need Saving From Its Base

2006-09-29T11:14:00.000-07:00

In a news story running this morning, former Missouri GOP Sen. John Danforth is hoping to take the Republican Party back from the religious right. The report, which is headlined “Ex-senator wants to save GOP from itself,” misses the point. The GOP does not need to be saved from its conservative base. What it needs to be saved from is its leadership which has driven the base to apathy.

The news story goes on to note that Danforth feels energy is “wasted” debating issues like gay marriage and also “diverts attention from important matters like the budget that are the proper province of government.”

The Christian Science Monitor, which served as host to the Wednesday breakfast in which Danforth made his comments, quotes the former senator as saying, “I am not going to give up on my party. I just want it to get back to its moorings … I just want them to disengage themselves from the Christian right.”

In another similar attack, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), blasted religious conservative leaders such as Focus on the Family’s James Dobson.

“The national representatives of the social conservative movement used to be sophisticated and tolerant. Today, they are sophomoric and angry. It’s an embarrassing spectacle seeing leaders bullied around by the likes of James Dobson, or watching the Christian Coalition team up with MoveOn.org in support of bigger government.”

Now is not the time to be blasting the very people whom the Republican Party is counting on for votes this November. Republican leaders should be reaching out to their constituents, not trying to alienate them.

As a Christian, I appreciate the Republican Party’s attention to issues such as protecting innocent human life. I see these issues as a core part of our platform. To blast conservative leaders for putting these issues at the forefront is not only bad for the Party, it is bad politics this close to the election.

Liberty Letters Comment: So goes an editorial by Bobby Eberle at GOPUSA this morning - but another indication of Republican Party betrayal of its founding principles, yet another reason why we either need to more fully assert ourselves within the party, cleaning house of these unprincipled budget only guys (who, by the way, are every bit as liberal or more when it comes to 'growing' Washington and centralizing power there and at the U.N.), or open the door for a legitimate third party.

Christian without a name

2006-09-29T10:59:00.000-07:00

Born on June 18 to a Christian family in northern Azerbaijan, three-month-old Ilya Eyvazov still has no official name. According to Compass Direct News, local authorities in the town of Aliabad at first refused to issue a birth certificate to the baby’s father, Novruz Eyvazov, when they saw his son’s name was the Russian form of Elijah. “They said it was because it was a Christian name,” said the Baptist church member. After a month, Novruz Eyvazov succeeded only in securing a birth certificate that left his son’s name blank. One official in the regional registration office in Zaqatala said that Baptists in Aliabad were facing difficulties because their attempt to take non-Azeri names was part of a plot to cede Zaqatala to neighboring Georgia. Little Ilya Eyvazov’s two older brothers, Moisei [Moses] and Luka, were also denied birth certificates by the municipality for some months. Considered part of a “foreign” religious sect, the three Baptist congregations in Aliabad face ongoing harassment from the local government, which has refused them official church registration for the past 13 years.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Gathering Round the Pole: Students for Christ

2006-09-29T10:45:00.000-07:00

AgapePress reports students nationwide have gathered to pray and worship around their school flagpoles for the 17th annual "See You At The Pole." The student-led event is held before class on the fourth Wednesday each September. Doug Clark of the National Network of Youth Ministries estimates that yesterday's SYATP observance attracted two million students at tens of thousands of schools in every state. Clark says he knows of only one school, a public middle school in Louisiana, where the principal refused to let students pray around the flagpole before class. And he says there are other reports of Christian students being heckled by their classmates. But students who participated also said it encouraged them and gave them opportunities to share their faith with classmates.

Liberty Letters Comment: And why not? Aren't our schools supposed to be a place where young men and young women are supposed to learn about freedom: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and that our rights are not the gift of the state but of Almighty God? That's what used to be part of the status quo in American education, and ought to be once again. Amen to pole prayers. Congratulations to those young folks across the nation who had the guts to stand down the socialists and secularists of America who would overthrow all that is precious to u s, and stand up for God, Christ, and the American way.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Wal-Mart: Taking Aim Against the Family

2006-09-29T10:29:00.000-07:00

Family Leader News. We've just begun a serious discussion at our house about whether we will withdraw from shopping at Wal-Mart. They are close by; we spend thousands of dollars there a year; but they have succumbed to pressure and are actively promoting the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage. Just look at what they are doing in Idaho, where Family Leader is working hard to pass a state marriage protection amendment.

Enough is Enough

Wal-Mart Sponsoring Diversity Week

The following is a report from our friends at the American Family Association. We work in coalition with them on several projects through our Washington D.C. affiliation.

Wal-Mart has given its full endorsement to the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage. Boise State University in Boise, Idaho, will observe LGBT Diversity Week October 9-13. One of the sponsors for the Diversity Week is Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is joining the Pleasure Boutique (an adult bookstore which bills itself as "Idaho's largest selection of adult movies and DVDs and largest adult toy selection in Idaho") and other groups in sponsoring the week. Diversity Week is a week of celebrating homosexuality and promoting the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage.

Among the events being sponsored by Wal-Mart is Idaho Votes No Campaign Update and Information Workshop. Voters in Idaho will be voting on a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in November. This Wal-Mart sponsored event will inform voters how to oppose the amendment and how to get others to do so. Wal-Mart is putting their money behind the effort to legalize homosexual marriage.

Other events being sponsored by Wal-Mart: Gay History of Idaho, Diversity in the Workplace, Women's/Lesbian Issues, Hate Based Crimes, Heterosexism, Homosexuality and Disabilities, LGBT Youth in Trouble, MCC-Faith and LGBT, and a youth dance for those age 24 and under.

Wal-Mart is throwing their clout and cash behind the homosexual marriage effort.

****

Take Action:
SEND YOUR LETTER NOW!

1. Send your email to Wal-Mart using the link below. OR BETTER YET WRITE A PERSONAL LETTER TO:

PRESIDENT LEE SCOTT

WAL-MART STORES INC

702 SW 8TH STREET

BENTONVILLE, AR. 72716.

Wal-Mart often blocks emails. To make sure your voice is heard, please call Wal-Mart's headquaters and ask to speak with President Lee Scott at 479-273-4000.

2. Call your local Wal-Mart manager and express your concerns. Please be polite when you call.

3. Be sure to forward this to your entire email list to alert them of the strong stand by Wal-Mart in promoting the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage.

SEND YOUR LETTER NOW!

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Family Leader Urgent Update

2006-09-28T10:57:00.000-07:00

Urgent, Urgent, Urgent

Yesterday we sent you an email regarding the parental notification bill that would require an abortionist to alert parents before an abortion was performed on a minor child. This is a critical update.

Please forward this to all of your friends. Immediate action is required.

The U.S. Senate will conduct a do-or-die vote on one of the most important pro-life bills ever to come before the Congress -- the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) -- as early as Friday, September 29.

All pro-life groups and citizens must immediately TELEPHONE the offices of their two U.S. senators to urge them to vote in "in favor of cloture on the parental notification bill, S. 403."

It is this simple: If a senator really believes that a parent should be notified before an abortion is performed on a minor, he or she will vote yes on S. 403, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. If a senator wants abortionists to be able to perform abortions on girls of any age without knowledge of a parent, he or she will vote no, or skip the vote. Because of the procedural situation, an absence will have the same effect as a pro-abortion vote.
Sixty votes (out of 100 senators) will be required to send the bill to President Bush. This vote is winnable. But you must act immediately!

Take Action:
Call Your Senator

Because the vote may occur so soon, you must rely on PHONE CALLS to the Washington offices of senators. All Senate offices can be reached through the Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. Also, call the nearest IN-STATE offices of your two U.S. senators with the same message. The numbers of in-state offices or for specific Washington D.C. offices for each senator can be found by clicking here and entering your zipcode.

E-mails, faxes, and other modes of communication may not be counted until after the vote has already occurred! So please -- TELEPHONE the D.C. and home-state offices of your senators!

War and Peace, George Washington

2006-09-28T08:45:00.000-07:00

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. -- President George Washington, 1st Annual Message to Congress, January 8, 1790

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Grocery Chain Slapped with Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

2006-09-28T07:48:00.000-07:00

A major supermarket chain based in California is being sued by a former employee who claims he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs, AgapePress reports. Phillip Way claims he was hired by Randall's Food Markets in May 2004 with the agreement he would not work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. But Way claims he was denied promotions and employment benefits because of those beliefs, and was eventually fired because he was unable to work on Sundays. The Liberty Legal Institute has filed a lawsuit against Randall's on behalf of Way. Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Legal, says the company's actions violate the law. Randall's, he adds, "should be ashamed for engaging in such blatant and hostile religious discrimination."

Liberty Letters Comment: One of the Ten Commandments -- "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy ... Six days thou shalt do all thy work, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, thou shalt rest from thy labors" -- contains within it a protection for religious freedom. Were every employer to honor this Higher Law, so far as his employers were concerned, more Americans would be free to practice their religion as they pleased.

Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin, by contrast, intentionally initiated rotating shift work, seven days per week, so as to make it near impossible for those few who were still secretly practicing their faith (despite sanctions, persecution, imprisonment, and merciless slaughter).

When will employers learn that by being open on Sundays, and thus mandating a certain percentages of their employees to work on that Holy Day, they are following in Stalin's footprints -- for the love of money -- displaying indifference, if not outright hostility toward a man's faith and the religious freedom our forefathers bequeathed to us at so great a price?

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

India: Beatings, Threats Continue in Madhya Pradesh

2006-09-28T07:41:00.000-07:00

Compass Direct News reports Hindu extremists severely beat two pastors on September 24 in Madhya Pradesh, India, before dragging them to a police station and accusing them of “forcing” conversions. Two days earlier, extremists had attacked and injured two evangelists in the same state, later accusing them of “hurting Hindu sentiments.” More than 20 members of two extremist groups barged into a church in Nana Badvani area in Badvani district last Sunday and attacked two pastors, identified only as Sukhlal and Jorsingh. The pastors, who were warned to abandon Christianity or forfeit their lives, were held in police custody until a member of the state’s Minorities Commission intervened. In a separate incident two days earlier, two evangelists in Betul district were beaten and then placed in police custody. The two men remain under arrest, reportedly fearful that in the tense situation, they could be attacked again if released on bail. At least 18 Christians have been accused of attempted forced conversions or hurting Hindu religious sentiments in Madhya Pradesh since the state strengthened its anti-conversion laws on July 25.

Liberty Letters Comment: Mainstream media sits silent.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Democrats Are Blindsided By The Truth, by Christopher G. Adamo

2006-09-28T07:32:00.000-07:00

The past week was extremely rough on American leftists. Public spotlights have been shining brightly on them from various angles. The result is that they are no longer able to hide behind their innocuous facades. The reality of their ideology is suddenly being seen in its stark ugliness. This is not how things are supposed to work, and they do not like it.

In recent years, every time liberals perceive that their “patriotism” is being called into question, they caterwaul as the supposed victims of the most heinous of personal attacks. Their indignation often borders on the hysterical, to the point that far too many conservatives have actually been intimidated at the prospect of even sounding skeptical of the inherent and universally recognized “loyalty” to country among leftists.

Yet up to the United Nations General Assembly podium strode Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week, renouncing American policy and America’s president. A day later, that same forum witnessed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, similarly attacking President Bush, to the point of calling him “The Devil.” To the dismay of the left, the general public readily recognizes that these attacks from foreign leaders precisely echo the “patriotism” regularly being spewed by liberal Democrats.

Despite the desperate attempts of Democrat leaders to distance themselves from the UN spectacle, the parallels between their words, and more importantly, their motives, as compared to those of the two hostile foreign leaders, have become irrefutable. Their cover has been blown.

If the liberal Democrats can claim, by virtue of their subversive and consistently anti-American rhetoric of the past several years, that such behavior is indeed “patriotic,” then so must it be concluded that Ahmadinejad and Chavez are also great American “patriots.”

Yet liberalism has never been about “patriotism.” Nor has it been devoted to the betterment of the nation according to the traditional principles on which the nation was founded and flourished. Rather, liberalism has remained fixated on an agenda of undermining and ultimately destroying such things, always hiding behind the cloak of the inherent nobility of “dissent,” while claiming to honorably represent the viewpoint of the “loyal opposition.”

Unfortunately for the left, the venomous ranting of Chavez and Ahmadinejad has removed any phony veneer of “virtue” from its contention that the condemnation of every American effort to preserve its culture, its interests, and its future represents devotion to the country. The goals of those two dictatorial thugs, who barely stopped short of pounding their shoes (or possibly their sandals) on the UN podium, could not by any stretch of the imagination be construed as a roadmap to a brighter American future.

Representative Charles Rangell of New York, along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) led Democrat “damage control” efforts, which thus far have only amounted to tepid and selective criticism of the foreign leaders’ comments. But no amount of bland disagreement can erase the similarities that an informed public can draw between the positions of hostile foreign dictators to the current Democrat leadership. The harsh truths revealed at the UN have severely undermined the charade. And Democrats are scrambling in their efforts to minimize the detrimental effects on their political battle plan.

Meanwhile, as a result of that now infamous interview with Fox reporter Chris Wallace, former President Bill Clinton further exemplified the ugly reality of the American left.

During his two terms in office, Clinton did indeed diligently pursue those he considered his enemies, though their ranks were almost entirely comprised of Conservative and Christian political organizations whom he hounded with the full power of the FBI and IRS.

Moreover, America should never forget the significance of those fourteen hundred FBI files, illegally brought to the White House no doubt to neutralize a “dangerous” foe (albeit a political one). All the while, the gathering storm clouds of Militant Islam were virtually ignored, since forcefully dealing with them did not promise to yield any tangible political benefits.

Honest individuals, especially those who have spent their entire lives being schooled in the rigors of public life, rarely react in the hysterical manner Bill Clinton displayed, regardless of the speciousness of any accusations against them. The former President’s minions, including his wife, can attempt to spin the situation in any way they want. Yet Bill Clinton still looked very guilty. And despite their relentless efforts to put a good face on the spectacle, everyone knows why.

Most distressing to the left during this past week’s events is that Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Clinton allowed America a glimpse into the soul of modern liberalism. All of the sanitizing efforts on the part of the old-media cannot revise those images or the words that accompanied them.

Nor can the commonality of their motivations ever after be erased from public awareness. It was not a pretty sight.

Truth & Liberty found in Christ, not the mortal prince

2006-09-27T09:12:00.000-07:00

Who doubteth (Christian Reader) but innocency must be under the courtesy and mercy of malice, and that it is a real martyrdom to be brought under the lawless inquisition of the bloody tongue. Christ, the prophets, and apostles of our Lord, went to heaven with the note of traitors, seditious men, and such as turned the world upside down: calumnies of treason to Cæsar were an ingredient in Christ's cup, and therefore the author is the more willing to drink of that cup that touched his lip, who is our glorious Forerunner: what, if conscience toward God, and credit with men, cannot both go to heaven with the saints, the author is satisfied with the former companion, and is willing to dismiss the other. Truth to Christ cannot be treason to Cæsar, and for his choice he judgeth truth to have a nearer relation to Christ Jesus, than the transcendent and boundless power of a mortal prince. -- Rev. Samuel Rutherford, "Lex Rex," 1644, preface.

Liberty Letters Comment: Such early, bold and fearless Christian thinking as Rev. Samuel Rutherford's in, "Lex Rex," struck at the supremacy of the Almighty State in favor of the higher law of God to which men could appeal for moral legitimacy against an unrighteous government or ruler

How vital it is to remember whence cometh our liberties - not from the thinking of anti-God Enlightment men that spawned the French Revolution (and ultimately communism and facsism), but in a Christian Enlightenment that liberated itself from the tyranny of the state, fled to a distant land, and by and by established the United States of America.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

If they tell us Baal is God ... (the religion of party spirit)

2006-09-27T08:50:00.000-07:00

Most of our functionaries nowadays are party-men; and it is astonishing with what facility such men, with station to aid them, create opinions for the public mind. If they tell us Baal is God, Baal becomes at once the object of an extended popular worship. They have but to speak the word, and immediately a thousand newspapers publish it; a whole race of minor demagogues repeat and inculcate it; ignorance is led captive; intelligence itself gives way to clamour; reason fails of its office; error and passion march in triumph through the land. -- INQUIRY INTO THE MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. [H. W. Warner (1787-1875)]

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

A bit of humility

2006-09-27T08:43:00.000-07:00

NATIONS, like individuals, should endeavour to learn something from the ills they suffer. It is especially becoming in a free people, when visited with chastisement, to consider wherein they have provoked the rod, and as far as may be, to compensate their misfortunes by growing wiser and better under them. - H.W. Warner, "Inquiry Into the Religious and Moral Character of the American Government, 1835."

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Love of Learning, Benjamin Franklin

2006-09-22T15:47:00.000-07:00

From a child I was fond of reading, and all the little money that came into my hands was ever laid out in books. -- Benjamin Franklin

80,000 violent felons run free on U.S. streets

2006-09-22T14:52:00.000-07:00

'We currently have roughly 5,000 federal agents trying to apprehend 500,000 illegal aliens with court orders against them. Eighty-thousand of them are serious felons, such as murderers, drug dealers, child molesters, and rapists,' Norwood said on the floor of the House. 'Those odds are impossible. But if we allow our 700,000 state and local police to volunteer to help, the odds get a lot better.'"

Liberty Letters comment: Illegal immigration isn't a national security issue? But shouldn't the focus be on employers who hire them, rather than beefed up police forces, and cutting off the welfare gravy train? Deal with these two issues and the massiveness of the problem will diminish almost overnight.

Bush Reading Program Gets Failing Grade

2006-09-22T14:44:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - A scorching internal review of the Bush administration's billion-dollar-a-year reading program says the Education Department ignored the law and ethical standards to steer money how it wanted.

The government audit is unsparing in its view that the Reading First program has been beset by conflicts of interest and willful mismanagement. It suggests the department broke the law by trying to dictate which curriculum schools must use.

It also depicts a program in which review panels were stacked with people who shared the director's views, and in which only favored publishers of reading curricula could get money.

In one e-mail, the director told a staff member to come down hard on a company he didn't support, according to the report released Friday by the department's inspector general.

"They are trying to crash our party and we need to beat the (expletive deleted) out of them in front of all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the front lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags," the program director wrote, the report says.

That official, Chris Doherty, is resigning in the coming days, department spokeswoman Katherine McLane said Friday. Asked if his quitting was in response to the report, she said only that Doherty is returning to the private sector after five years at the agency.

Liberty Letters comment: Just a small taste of why centralization, especially in education, is a dangerous idea.

Liberalism is Destroying the Geneva Convention, by Christopher Adamo

2006-09-22T07:48:00.000-07:00

Pick your issue, from the environment to “sexual harassment,” to the treatment of captured terrorists, and the liberal take on it is guaranteed to be wrong on every front. First, the concerns expressed by the left are invariably only a facade, intended to exploit the situation in an effort to advance the cause of liberalism. Secondly, and more significantly, liberal involvement will almost exclusively worsen the problem about which the left claims to be concerned.

On the topic of “sexual harassment,” the left incessantly lauded itself as a champion of the plight of women at the hands of brutish men, until the brutish “man” in question was the sniveling philandering Democrat President whom they believed to be their secular messiah.

Suddenly, “sex” was no longer sex, and “harassment,” even to the point of criminal assault and intimidation, was no longer any indictment of the perpetrator. In essence, liberals were proving that these issues were of concern to them only insofar as they could be used to bludgeon their political opposition into compliance and retreat.

Otherwise, whether the issue is that of an innocent receptionist who is affronted by the then governor of Arkansas exposing himself to her and thereafter seeking to bully her into silence, or the genocide of hundreds of thousands of helpless refugees in sub-Saharan Africa, liberals are absolutely indifferent to it. Yet such indifference may be the far lesser of two evils.

Consider all of their recent caterwauling over the “plight” of the Islamist monsters being detained at Guantanamo, and how liberal Democrats from both parties contend that the present controversy might ostensibly yield an adverse effect on the Geneva Convention.

Just as with every other issue they embrace, the actual result promises to be incalculable damage to the significance of that treaty. Yet in truth the left is no more concerned with the fate of the terrorists or the treaty than it is with the entirely predictable fallout that will negatively impact American servicemen in present and future conflicts.

What must first be understood is the manner in which the Geneva Convention was constructed and ratified, and what mechanisms must be in place in order for it to be upheld. In the wake of atrocities against military prisoners taken captive during the First World War, nations that held a concern for their own soldiers, when captured, agreed to set standards of reasonable treatment.

Yet despite the juvenile beliefs of liberal utopians, no beneficent and all-powerful authority exists that could enforce such provisions. Neither The Hague nor the United Nations qualifies. Experience has shown them to be little more than miserable and pathetic caricatures of such.

Ultimately, the participating nations recognized that the only manner in which the Convention could be upheld was to diligently grant such protections to the prisoners from those nations who were themselves signatories and therefore in agreement with the provisions of the convention. It is this promise of reciprocity, both positive and negative, that undergirds the Convention.

During World War II, an American captive could expect superior treatment in a German prisoner of war camp to that received by a Russian, owing in part to the fact that although both America and Germany signed the treaty, the Soviet Union had not. Thus, in the wake of the war, the Soviets became official signatories to the pact.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court bestowed upon al Qaeda terrorists (Hardly an organized or accountable military entity) the “rights” of prisoners under the Geneva Convention. In doing so, the Court committed an act of blatant and unconstitutional activism that makes a mockery of the Convention, and in a former era would have resulted in their impeachment and removal from the bench.

Despite the fact that the terrorist-prisoners were already being treated with a level of civility vastly exceeding anything Americans might ever expect at their hands, the Court essentially codified their status as legitimate members of a foreign “army” that at some future date could conceivably enter into a treaty with the United States Government.

To justify this outrage, the court invoked a phony premise that it was somehow ensuring that Americans, captured by al Qaeda members or their allies, would receive reciprocal consideration. Yet it is beyond absurd to expect that people who clearly intend to wage and win their wars through wanton brutality and cruelty would ever defer to such behavior.

Worse yet, those countries that might be wavering in their commitment to participation within the rules of the Convention suddenly have no incentive to abide by any provision of it. If their own military members are now guaranteed, by order of the United States Supreme Court, to be treated with utmost consideration, regardless of their own actions towards Americans, why should they then be willing to accept the constraints of the treaty if so doing accrues no further benefit to them?

In short, the ability of the American government to protect the interests of its own citizenry and military personnel is directly tied to its willingness to use its power as leverage against those nations who seek to do harm to it.

With every effort to restrict and undermine that ability, the American left (A cabal that now undeniably includes the likes of Arizona Senator John McCain) increases the likelihood that America’s enemies will abuse and kill captured American servicemen and women with impunity.

McCain and his cohorts certainly know this. Thus they cannot be excused, on the basis of ignorance, from such seditious collaboration with the enemies of America.

Moral Norms - Public Laws, Immanuel Kant

2006-09-21T15:08:00.000-07:00

Moral norms for conduct, therefore, are preeminently public laws, characterized by the universality of the obligations they impose, especially reciprocity. It is important to state this clearly, because today so many people tend to think of morality as concerned mainly or only with one's private standards. -- Introduction, "The Metaphysics of Morals," by Immanuel Kant

A Heavenly Canopy - America, a Blessed Nation and People

2006-09-21T14:12:00.000-07:00

Who can reflect on that gracious guardian power of America, which brought us safely through our alarming war against Great Britain, which not only enabled us to repel Lord North's attempts on our liberties, but, far beyond our first and most sanguine expectations, to establish ourselves Free and Independent States; and then, without the least struggle or blood-shed among ourselves, kindly spread over our favoured heads, the heavenly canopy of an excellent government, pouring down on us all the blessings of just and equitable society; securing to every honest man and his family, the sweet and precious safeties of his liberty, his life, his health, his character, his property, his religion, and in fine, of every blessing connected with his highest happiness in this world, and with his preparation for eternal happiness in the next - who can say, can think of this profusion of riches, mercies conferred on our country, above all other countries in the world, without feeling his soul oppressed and almost overwhelmed with a sense of the Divine munificence ...? - Parson Weems

A Reasonable Goal for Immigration Today

2006-09-21T14:02:00.000-07:00

"... the chief goal of Americans was for the reaffirmation and perservation of their ideals. To slow down immigration to the rate of assimilation, to consolidate American opinion and sentiment ..." - Ralph Baxton Perry, "Puritanism and Democracy," p. 4, commenting on the spirit of American Foreign Policy following WWI and our rejection of the League of Nations.

Criticism of Evolution Can't be Silenced, Phyllis Schlafly

2006-08-17T22:03:00.000-07:00

The liberal press is gloating that the seesaw battle for control of the Kansas Board of Education just teetered back to pro-evolutionists for the second time in five years. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the movement to allow criticism of evolution are grossly exaggerated.

In its zeal to portray evolution critics in Kansas as dumb rural fundamentalists, a New York Times page-one story misquoted Dr. Steve Abrams (the school board president who had steered Kansas toward allowing criticism of evolution) on a basic principle of science. The newspaper had to correct its error.

The issue in the Kansas controversy was not intelligent design and certainly not creationism. The current Kansas standards state: "To promote good science, good pedagogy and a curriculum that is secular, neutral and non-ideological, school districts are urged to follow the advice provided by the House and Senate Conferees in enacting the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001."

This "advice," which the Kansas standards quote, is: "The Conferees recognize that quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

The newly elected school board members immediately pledged to work swiftly to restore a science curriculum that does not subject evolution to criticism. They don't want students to learn "the full range of scientific views" or that there is a "controversy" about evolution.
Liberals see the political value to teaching evolution in school, as it makes teachers and children think they are no more special than animals. Childhood joy and ambition can turn into depression as children learn to reject that they were created in the image of God.

The press is claiming that the pro-evolution victory in Kansas (where, incidentally, voter turnout was only 18 percent) was the third strike for evolution critics. Last December a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, prohibited the school from even mentioning Intelligent Design, and in February, the Ohio board of education nixed a plan to allow a modicum of critical analysis of evolution.

But one strikeout does not a ball game win. Gallup Polls have repeatedly shown that only about 10 percent of Americans believe the version of evolution commonly taught in public schools and, despite massive public school indoctrination in Darwinism, that number has not changed much in decades.

Intelligent judges are beginning to reject the intolerant demands of the evolutionists. In May, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned the decision by a Clinton-appointed trial judge to prohibit the Cobb County, Georgia, school board from placing this sticker on textbooks: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Fortunately, judges and politicians cannot control public debate about evolution. Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has enjoyed weeks on the New York Times best-seller list.

Despite bitter denunciations by the liberals, funny thing, there has been a thundering silence about the one-third of her book in which she deconstructs Darwinism. She calls it the cosmology of the Church of Liberalism.

Coulter's book charges that evolution is a cult religion, and described how its priests and practitioners regularly treat critics as religious heretics. The Darwinists' answer to every challenge is to accuse their opponents of, horrors, a fundamentalist belief in God.

Although the liberals spent a lot of money to defeat members of the Kansas school board members on August 1, they are finding it more and more difficult to prop up Darwinism by the censorship of criticism. The polite word for the failure of Darwinism to prove its case is gaps in the theory, but Ann Coulter's book shows that dishonesty and hypocrisy are more accurate descriptions.

Evolutionists are too emotionally committed to face up to the failure of evidence to support their faith, but they are smart enough to know that they lose whenever debate is allowed, which is why they refused the invitation to present their case at a public hearing in Kansas. But this is America, and 90 percent of the public will not remain silenced.

Further Reading: Evolution

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • eagle@eagleforum.org

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

A Most Solemn Oath, Registered In Heaven, Abe Lincoln

2006-08-17T21:45:00.000-07:00

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. -- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

The Federalist Papers, Number 13, Alexander Hamilton

2006-08-17T21:32:00.000-07:00

AS CONNECTED with the subject of revenue, we may with propriety consider that of economy. The money saved from one object may be usefully applied to another, and there will be so much the less to be drawn from the pockets of the people. If the States are united under one government, there will be but one national civil list to support; if they are divided into several confederacies, there will be as many different national civil lists to be provided for—and each of them, as to the principal departments, coextensive with that which would be necessary for a government of the whole. The entire separation of the States into thirteen unconnected sovereignties is a project too extravagant and too replete with danger to have many advocates. The ideas of men who speculate upon the dismemberment of the empire seem generally turned towards three confederacies—one consisting of the four Northern, another of the four Middle, and a third of the five Southern States. There is little probability that there would be a greater number. According to this distribution each confederacy would comprise an extent of territory larger than that of the kingdom of Great Britain. No well-informed man will suppose that the affairs of such a confederacy can be properly regulated by a government less comprehensive in its origins or institutions than that which has been proposed by the convention. When the dimensions of a State attain to a certain magnitude, it requires the same energy of government and the same forms of administration which are requisite in one of much greater extent. This idea admits not of precise demonstration, because there is no rule by which we can measure the momentum of civil power necessary to the government of any given number of individuals; but when we consider that the island of Britain, nearly commensurate with each of the supposed confederacies, contains about eight millions of people, and when we reflect upon the degree of authority required to direct the passions of so large a society to the public good, we shall see no reason to doubt that the like portion of power would be sufficient to perform the same task in a society far more numerous. Civil power, properly organized and exerted, is capable of diffusing its force to a very great extent, and can in a manner reproduce itself in every part of a great empire by a judicious arrangement of subordinate institutions.

The supposition that each confederacy into which the States would be likely to be divided would require a government not less comprehensive than the one proposed will be strengthened by another supposition, more probable than that which presents us with three confederacies as the alternative to a general Union. If we attend carefully to geographical and commercial considerations, in conjunction with the habits and prejudices of the different States, we shall be led to conclude that in case of disunion they will most naturally league themselves under two governments. The four Eastern States, from all the causes that form the links of national sympathy and connection, may with certainty be expected to unite. New York, situated as she is, would never be unwise enough to oppose a feeble and unsupported flank to the weight of that confederacy. There are other obvious reasons that would facilitate her accession to it. New Jersey is too small a State to think of being a frontier in opposition to this still more powerful combination; nor do there appear to be any obstacles to her admission into it. Even Pennsylvania would have strong inducements to join the Northern league. An active foreign commerce, on the basis of her own navigation, is her true policy, and coincides with the opinions and dispositions of her citizens. The more Southern States, from various circumstances, may not think themselves much interested in the encouragement of navigation. They may prefer a system which would give unlimited scope to all nations to be the carriers as well as the purchasers of their commodities. Pennsylvania may not choose to confound her interests in a connection so adverse to her policy. As she must at all events be a frontier, she may deem it most consistent with her safety to have her exposed side turned towards the weaker power of the Southern, rather than towards the stronger power of the Northern, Confederacy. This would give her the fairest chance to avoid being the Flanders of America. Whatever may be the determination of Pennsylvania, if the Northern Confederacy includes New Jersey, there is no likelihood of more than one confederacy to the south of that State.

Nothing can be more evident than that the thirteen States will be able to support a national government better than one half, or one third, or any number less than the whole. This reflection must have great weight in obviating that objection to the proposed plan, which is founded on the principle of expense; an objection, however, which, when we come to take a nearer view of it, will appear in every light to stand on mistaken ground.

If, in addition to the consideration of a plurality of civil lists, we take into view the number of persons who must necessarily be employed to guard the inland communication between the different confederacies against illicit trade, and who in time will infallibly spring up out of the necessities of revenue; and if we also take into view the military establishments which it has been shown would unavoidably result from the jealousies and conflicts of the several nations into which the States would be divided, we shall clearly discover that a separation would be not less injurious to the economy than to the tranquillity, commerce, revenue, and liberty of every part.

PUBLIUS [Hamilton]

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Iran’s Strategy Relies on Western Cowardice, by Christopher G. Adamo

2006-08-16T22:23:00.000-07:00

Among the Syrians, Iranians, and their surrogates known as Hezbollah, this latest “cease fire” with the Israelis will only be a time of reorganization and rearming. To those in the West, it is a time of naive and baseless “hope” for a result that has never been and will never be. And this false hope is sure to be shattered whenever the Islamists choose once again to assert themselves.

Many Westerners consider President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to operate somewhere between fanaticism and insanity. And among Iran’s leaders he is certainly not the first to give such an impression. When American embassy workers were first taken hostage in Tehran, in November of 1979, this country’s government and its allies were quick to invoke such invective against the villainous Ayatollah Khomeni and his minions.

Threatening unspeakable brutality against the hostages throughout the remaining year of the Carter Presidency, the Iranians nonetheless became absolutely serious about negotiating a peaceable end to the crisis from the very moment Ronald Reagan was elected to succeed Jimmy Carter.

Hardly the “crazies” they had been portrayed to be, the Iranians suddenly became very rational and desirous of a settlement. Nor did they show any inclination to achieve the martyrdom so greatly esteemed in their religion. In the end, the hostages were released at the very moment Reagan was sworn in as President. No coincidence there.

Twenty-seven years later, the status quo still holds in every respect. Hamas and Hezbollah still wantonly murder Israelis, and they still revel in plans to destroy Western Infidels. And, in a pattern that has been unbroken since the modern resurgence of militant Islam, their successes and failures are determined solely by the willingness of Westerners to accommodate them.

Israel easily could have moved in an unrestrained manner and vanquished those Islamists of Hezbollah who provoked its wrath by terrorizing its cities and murdering its citizens. Among those who desire true peace in the region, it is understood that this is the exact course they should have taken.

Yet, fearing diplomatic repercussions, Ehud Olmert, the current Israeli Prime Minister, chose to pull his punches right from the beginning of this most recent conflict. In so doing he lost his strategic edge while ensuring that the protracted nature of the conflict would result in the very condemnation he had so inordinately feared. Now he seeks to cut his losses by engaging in yet another meaningless “cease fire.”

Israeli restraint and capitulation has never garnered anything but an increase in the confidence, and thus the aggressiveness of its mortal enemies. So to expect anything different this time around, as key leaders and diplomats in the West are currently promising, indicates a degree of “wishful thinking” that itself borders on the insane.

Abu Heija, a writer for the Hamas publication Al-Risala, expresses the popular sentiment among Israel’s foes very plainly, stating that Israel’s willingness to abide by the “cease fire,” constitutes a “victory” for Hezbollah, and thus signals a “go-ahead” for new attacks from Hamas.

Should any rational individual be surprised by such a response from Israel’s sworn enemies? Has that tiny nation ever reaped any other reaction from its continued efforts to mollify or “buy” the good will of its mortal enemies through such ludicrous efforts as the giveaway of strategically critical lands?

Despite the almost juvenile wishes of those appeasers in the West, the grim “blessing” of this latest agreement is only that Israel will soon have another chance to properly deal with its enemies. This “cease fire” is no more likely to hold than its innumerable predecessors.

Therefore, Israel had better use the finite, intervening time to prepare for its next engagement, in order to ensure that the outcome is resolute and decisive. It can be absolutely certain that its enemies are doing exactly that.

In the short term, if it intends to enter into such clashes to a limited degree, only to eventually back out from them, it would be far better to simply learn to live with the periodic incursions and random killings perpetrated by those who hope to annihilate it.

But even if such cowardly thinking prevails, the situation will never dissipate into eventual calm. Militant Islam, if left unchecked, will invariably continue to metastasize, just as it always has. Such a reality bodes especially ill, considering that Iran now verges on the threshold of nuclear capability.

This conflict will end only when the current multitude of Islamic terrorist organizations are reduced to the status and capabilities of localized crime rings, governments who support them are deposed, and any who remain sympathetic to them are made to realize that it is in their own best interests to guarantee that such evil entities never rise again.

The stage has been set. Ahmadinejad and the dark forces he represents will relentlessly advance on the rest of civilization if allowed any latitude to do so. Those who remain in denial do not understand what it is that motivates him and his kind.

Like Osama Bin Laden before him, Ahmadinejad does not believe that the West possesses sufficient resolve to stand him down. And in this most recent engagement, the West has given him little reason to contemplate otherwise.

Despite all of the myopic moralizing of Israel and America’s reliable critics, neither retreat, nor isolationism, nor the phony stability of a “stalemate” present viable solutions. The only options for those nations that comprise Western civilization are to confront and defeat this enemy, or to face their own eventual eradication.

The God of America and All Nations, James Madison

2006-08-16T21:52:00.000-07:00

James Madison, in his first inaugural address, placed his confidence "in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future."

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

To Christ Goes the Crown, Christopher Columbus

2006-08-16T21:31:00.000-07:00

The eternal and almighty God, our Lord, it is Who gives to all who walk in His way, victory over things apparently impossible, and in this case signally so, because although these lands had been imagined and talked of before they were seen, most men listened incredulously to what was thought to be but an idle tale. But our Redeemer has given victory - Christopher Columbus, Letter to Luis De Sant Angel, Announcing his discovery, 25 February, 1493

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Blind Neglect, John Dickinson

2006-08-15T21:25:00.000-07:00

He certainly is not a wise man, who folds his arm, and reposes himself at home, viewing with unconcern, the flames that have invaded his neighbors house, without using any endeavor to extinguish them. -- John Dickinson, Letters From a Pennsylvania Farmer, 1767.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

The Federalist Papers, Number 12, Alexander Hamilton

2006-08-15T21:02:00.000-07:00

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION IN RESPECT TO REVENUE

THE effects of Union upon the commercial prosperity of the States have been sufficiently delineated. Its tendency to promote the interests of revenue will be the subject of our present inquiry.

The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares. By multiplying the means of gratification, by promoting the introduction and circulation of the precious metals, those darling objects of human avarice and enterprise, it serves to vivify and invigorate all the channels of industry and to make them flow with greater activity and copiousness. The assiduous merchant, the laborious husbandman, the active mechanic, and the industrious manufacturer—all orders of men look forward with eager expectation and growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toils. The often-agitated question between agriculture and commerce has from indubitable experience received a decision which has silenced the rivalship that once subsisted between them, and has proved, to the entire satisfaction of their friends, that their interests are intimately blended and interwoven. It has been found in various countries that in proportion as commerce has flourished land has risen in value. And how could it have happened otherwise? Could that which procures a freer vent for the products of the earth, which furnishes new incitements to the cultivators of land, which is the most powerful instrument in increasing the quantity of money in a state—could that, in fine, which is the faithful handmaid of labor and industry in every shape fail to augment the value of that article, which is the prolific parent of far the greatest part of the objects upon which they are exerted? It is astonishing that so simple a truth should ever have have an adversary; and it is one among a multitude of proofs how apt a spirit of ill-formed jealousy, or of too great abstraction and refinement, is to lead men astray from the plainest paths of reason and conviction.

The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned in a great degree to the quantity of money in circulation and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury. The hereditary dominions of the Emperor of Germany contain a great extent of fertile, cultivated, and populous territory, a large proportion of which is situated in mild and luxuriant climates. In some parts of this territory are to be found the best gold and silver mines in Europe. And yet from the want of the fostering influence of commerce that monarch can boast but slender revenues. He has several times been compelled to owe obligations to the pecuniary succors of other nations for the preservation of his essential interests, and is unable, upon the strength of his own resources, to sustain a long or continued war.

But it is not in this aspect of the subject alone that Union will be seen to conduce to the purposes of revenue. There are other points of view in which its influence will appear more immediate and decisive. It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty. The popular system of administration inherent in the nature of popular government, coinciding with the real scarcity of money incident to a languid and mutilated state of trade, has hitherto defeated every experiment for extensive collections, and has at length taught the different legislatures the folly of attempting them.

No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance. In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and from the vigor of the government, much more practicable than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts and from excises. Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.

In America it is evident that we must a long time depend for the means of revenue chiefly on such duties. In most parts of it excises must be confined within a narrow compass. The genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws. The pockets of the farmers, on the other hand, will reluctantly yield but scanty supplies in the unwelcome shape of impositions on their houses and lands; and personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the imperceptible agency of taxes on consumption.

If these remarks have any foundation, that state of things which will best enable us to improve and extend so valuable a resource must be the best adapted to our political welfare. And it cannot admit of a serious doubt that this state of things must rest on the basis of a general Union. As far as this would be conducive to the interests of commerce, so far it must tend to the extension of the revenue to be drawn from that source. As far as it would contribute to rendering regulations for the collection of the duties more simple and efficacious, so far it must serve to answer the purposes of making the same rate of duties more productive and of putting it into the power of the government to increase the rate without prejudice to trade.

The relative situation of these States; the number of rivers with which they are intersected and of bays that wash their shores; the facility of communication in every direction; the affinity of language and manners; the familiar habits of intercourse—all these are circumstances that would conspire to render an illicit trade between them a matter of little difficulty and would insure frequent evasions of the commercial regulations of each other. The separate States, or confederacies, would be necessitated by mutual jealousy to avoid the temptations to that kind of trade by the lowness of their duties. The temper of our governments for a long time to come would not permit those rigorous precautions by which the European nations guard the avenues into their respective countries, as well by land as by water; and which, even there, are found insufficient obstacles to the adventurous stratagems of avarice.

In France there is an army of patrols (as they are called) constantly employed to secure her fiscal regulations against the inroads of the dealers in contraband. Mr. Neckar computes the number of these patrols at upwards of twenty thousand.21 This proves the immense difficulty in preventing that species of traffic where there is an inland communication and shows in a strong light the disadvantages with which the collection of duties in this country would be encumbered, if by disunion the States should be placed in a situation with respect to each other resembling that of France with respect to her neighbors. The arbitrary and vexatious powers with which the patrols are necessarily armed would be intolerable in a free country.

If, on the contrary, there be but one government pervading all the States, there will be, as to the principal part of our commerce, but ONE SIDE to guard—the ATLANTIC COAST. Vessels arriving directly from foreign countries, laden with valuable cargoes, would rarely choose to hazard themselves to the complicated and critical perils which would attend attempts to unlade prior to their coming into port. They would have to dread both the dangers of the coast and of detection, as well after as before their arrival at the places of their final destination. An ordinary degree of vigilance would be competent to the prevention of any material infractions upon the rights of the revenue. A few armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports, might at small expense be made useful sentinels of the laws. And the government having the same interests to provide against violations everywhere, the co-operation of its measures in each State would have a powerful tendency to render them effectual. Here also we should preserve, by Union, an advantage which nature holds out to us and which would be relinquished by separation. The United States lie at a great distance from Europe and at a considerable distance from all other places with which they would have extensive connections of foreign trade. The passage from them to us, in a few hours or in a single night, as between the coasts of France and Britain, and of other neighboring nations, would be impracticable. This is a prodigious security against a direct contraband with foreign countries; but a circuitous contraband to one State through the medium of another would be both easy and safe. The difference between a direct importation from abroad, and an indirect importation through the channel of a neighboring State, in small parcels according to time and opportunity, with the additional facilities of inland communication, must be palpable to every man of discernment.

It is therefore evident that one national government would be able at much less expense to extend the duties on imports beyond comparison, further than would be practicable to the States separately, or to any partial confederacies. Hitherto, I believe, it may safely be asserted that these duties have not upon an average exceeded in any State three percent. In France they are estimated at about fifteen percent, and in Britain the proportion is still greater. There seems to be nothing to hinder their being increased in this country to at least treble their present amount. The single article of ardent spirits under federal regulation might be made to furnish a considerable revenue. Upon a ratio to the importation into this State, the whole quantity imported into the United States may at a low computation be estimated at four millions of gallons, which, at a shilling per gallon, would produce two hundred thousand pounds. That article would well bear this rate of duty; and if it should tend to diminish the consumption of it, such an effect would be equally favorable to the agriculture, to the economy, to the morals, and to the health of the society. There is, perhaps, nothing so much a subject of national extravagance as this very article.

What will be the consequence if we are not able to avail ourselves of the resource in question in its full extent? A nation cannot long exist without revenue. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land. It has been already intimated that excises in their true signification are too little in unison with the feelings of the people to admit of great use being made of that mode of taxation; nor, indeed, in the States where almost the sole employment is agriculture are the objects proper for excise sufficiently numerous to permit very ample collections in that way. Personal estate (as has been before remarked), from the difficulty of tracing it, cannot be subjected to large contributions by any other means than by taxes on consumption. In populous cities it may be enough the subject of conjecture to occasion the oppression of individuals, without much aggregate benefit to the State; but beyond these circles it must, in a great measure, escape the eye and the hand of the tax-gatherer. As the necessities of the State, nevertheless, must be satisfied in some mode or other, the defect of other resources must throw the principal weight of the public burdens on the possessors of land. And as on the other hand the wants of the government can never obtain an adequate supply, unless all the sources of revenue are open to its demands, the finances of the community, under such embarrassments, cannot be put into a situation consistent with its respectability or its security. Thus we shall not even have the consolations of a full treasury to atone for the oppression of that valuable class of the citizens who are employed in the cultivation of the soil. But public and private distress will keep pace with each other in gloomy concert and unite in deploring the infatuation of those counsels which led to disunion.

PUBLIUS [Hamilton]

Western Culture's Flagging Will to Survive, by Christopher G. Adamo

2006-08-09T15:50:00.000-07:00

The orchestrated international outrage over the death and mayhem at Qana leads to only two possible conclusions. The first possibility is that Hezbollah possesses an incredibly capable global publicity machine. Yet all aspects of that organization show it to be little more than an oversized street gang, fervent in its devotion and animalistic in its ferocity, but hardly able to oversee the worldwide dissemination of propaganda.

The second, and only plausible explanation for the situation is that innumerable other organizations are actually digesting and distributing Hezbollah disinformation, with the rag-tag band of terrorists merely being willing foot soldiers in this effort.

Brutal and murderous as Hezbollah may be, something much bigger and more sinister looms behind it. Ominously, it is against this entity that Western civilization, even when supported by American military might, may prove to be absolutely defenseless.

With each sunrise, Iran draws a day closer to nuclear capability. In response, the perennially impotent United Nations has given Iran an ultimatum to halt its nuclear program by August 31 of this year. Yet absolutely nobody, least of all Iran’s fanatical president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believes that the UN will do anything whatsoever to back up this demand.

Thus the Iranians’ crude effort to join the nuclear club is in no way matched by any Western resolve to prevent it from doing so. In truth, the anemic remnants of Western Civilization are daily exhibiting less and less of a determination to stop, or even to slow any advancement of the Islamist movement spreading insidiously through the world.

Instead, Westerners seek to find solace in the appearance of pockets among the Islamic culture that do not openly advocate or accommodate violence, as if that fact somehow dilutes or neutralizes the words and deeds of those who do.

Such momentary comforts may appear to allow for a brief retreat into the memories of that era before the Islamic threat metastasized into its present state. But in the long run vain longings of this nature merely ensure that the threat will continue to grow unchecked.

Meanwhile, the Islamists press forward, intending to dominate society in its entirety. Nor have their intentions varied in the slightest during the past fourteen hundred nears. But throughout most of that time, the western culture against which they strained was as intransigent as they were devoted. Such is no longer the case.

Upon its establishment, the European Union quickly abandoned the traditions and culture that, for centuries, had immunized its member states against such encroachment. And as “moral relativism” and “political correctness” continue to dominate and supplant the cultural tenets of its past, they make its undergirding philosophy increasingly frivolous and silly.

Ultimately, it is not any moral “clarity” on the part of the Islamists that gives them an advantage. Rather, it is the moral bankruptcy of the West that renders its chances of prevailing against militant Islam to be ever bleaker.

With Vietnam, a generation of Americas learned the bitter lesson that an enemy can prevent a far superior military power from prevailing, merely by its dogged refusal to surrender. Eventually, the willingness of the North Vietnamese to stay their course exceeded the willingness of the American people to endure the hardships of an offensive war, and so they quit the fight and came home.

Since then, the comfort and prosperity enjoyed by a subsequent generation of Americans has rendered it so soft, so self absorbed, that even the load of concern over an incurring enemy on its own soil is apparently too large of a burden to carry. Hence, an increasing number of Americans are frustrated and annoyed over their government’s present preoccupation with the “War on Terror,” as if the option exists to simply walk away from this looming threat.

So similar is this nihilistic mindset to that of the “Sixties” generation, now entrenched in such institutions as the colleges and media, that the two forces naturally draw together to spew their anti-American, anti-Western diatribe amidst airs of moral superiority. In the minds of such people, 9-11 notwithstanding, America can simply opt to placate those who have sworn its destruction, and thereafter everyone will simply get along.

It is from this manner of thinking that much of the current anti-Semitic diatribe is being fomented, which claims that the carnage in southern Lebanon is the result of Israeli aggression, and that the United States ought not support Israel in its effort to neutralize Hezbollah as a threat to its security.

Moreover, America’s abandonment of Israel might, in the minds of its critics, serve as a goodwill offering to the murderous religionists of Islamofacism. Subsequently, from such a cauldron, peace will somehow ensue.

Yet the problem goes deeper still. The very assertion by Hezbollah that the terrorist group is following the example of North Vietnam presumes the despicable cooperation from American and European leftists who cling to the subversive model they established during the height of the Cold War.

Ironically, the status quo of that era, precarious though it may have been, served to convince the cultural elites that their nations’ leaders had overstated the Soviet threat. But unlike the titanic confrontations of the Cold War, fought on such an enormous scale that the common citizen could never comprehend their scope, the war against militant Islam has already reached the streets of Europe and America.

Devoid of the moral certitude necessary to confront this enemy as the true evil it is, they similarly expect that platitudes and indifference will immunize them against the malevolent intentions of the Islamists. But just as surely as Hezbollah’s Katyusha rockets keep raining down upon northern Israel, if the buildup of militant Islam is not immediately brought to a halt, the nations of the west can surely expect much worse on their own soil.

General Benedict Arnold Was Also a “War Hero”, by Christopher G. Adamo

2006-06-30T13:54:00.000-07:00

It is long past time to speak the undiluted truth in response to Congressman John Murtha (D.-Pa.), Senator John Kerry (D.-Ma) and any of their cohorts on Capitol Hill who continually strive to demoralize Americans in the War on Terror by demanding unconditional retreat. They are not “patriotic” nor are they voices of the “loyal opposition,” for they can be neither patriotic nor loyal when “carrying the water” for the mortal enemies of America.

A reality check is once again in order, since the realities of the past five years have been completely abandoned by the left. America was attacked, on its own soil, by militant Islamists who obsessively seek its annihilation. Thousands of innocent people were indiscriminately and brutally slaughtered in a matter of minutes.

The attack was wholly unprovoked, unless one accepts the enemy’s premise that refusal to be converted to Islam, or an alliance with another nation that similarly refuses to do so, constitutes “provocation.”

Hence, America’s only option is either to accept the enemy’s terms of unconditional surrender or go on offense against that enemy. This was true in the wake of the attacks as well as during the decade leading up to them.

Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration ignored this truth and attempted a third wholly untenable “alternative,” which was to simply ignore the problem with the hope that it would go away. In retrospect, the consequences of that choice are indistinguishable from “surrender.”

Honest liberals would own up to the fact that American inaction during the ‘90’s left the nation vulnerable, and thus allowed those attacks to be successfully carried out. But then again, “honest liberals” would not be liberal.

So rather than admitting to their unwitting complicity with America’s enemies, they grudgingly waved flags and rooted for the nation in the immediate aftermath of the attacks while emotions were running high. They astutely perceived that any other response would not be tolerated.

But they quickly reverted back to their anti-American screed the moment they suspected that the tide of public opinion might be changing, and that they might have an opening to seize the moral and philosophical “high ground.”

Having vacillated continually on the terror war issue for the past five years, they saw their electoral fortunes ebb. Now, in a desperate effort to reclaim dominant status inside the Beltway that they believe to be inherently theirs, they are again on the attack. But their attack is no less directed at the heartland of America than are the attacks of the Islamists.

Every whisper of wrongful action by the U.S. military is greeted with a mix of jubilation and enthusiastic condemnation by leftists on Capitol Hill and the nightly news. Concurrently, the upbeat stories of progress and improvement in the stability of post-Hussein Iraq invariably generate skepticism and disparagement.

The President’s recent visit to Iraq, itself a great milestone on the road to total victory in that theater of the terror war, was nonetheless demeaned in every possible manner by the liberal establishment.

Just as al Zarqawi’s memos and communications indicated that the tone inside al Qaeda is getting desperate in the face of imminent defeat, so do the derisive reaction from the left to every bit of good news out of Iraq prove that liberals are becoming similarly desperate.

Their loyalties plainly do not lie with the well being of this nation. Nor can they legitimately claim any noble or patriotic motivation for continuing their campaign of declaring doom and defeat for this country.

For those on the left, every contest is solely determined only from the perspective of political gain or loss to the cause of liberalism. And time and again, the proponents of this sordid political strategy have proven themselves to be wholly indifferent to any negative consequences reaped by the nation or its military. Such behavior does not fit any definition of “loyalty.”

Moreover, it is indefensible to assert that, owing to their veteran status, all criticism of anti-war mouthpieces John Kerry or John Murtha, and the political class they represent, should be censored.

Although these are among the best examples liberals are able to present as “war heroes,” any actual heroic deeds that might have been perpetrated by Kerry and Murtha occurred more than three decades ago. And particularly in Kerry’s case, the validity of such deeds is extremely dubious.

Military commendations and service awards are ultimately meant as tribute to the events of a particular period in time. Often, they represent a single episode in the life of the recipient. They were never intended as a license of lifetime immunity from criticism for any and every outlandish behavior on the part of the bearer, including de facto collaboration with the enemy

Kerry and Murtha’s strategically disastrous demands that America cut and run from the terrorist insurgency at a time when it is desperately attempting to rally its dwindling forces, belie something that is hardly less than a dark alliance between the terrorists and the American left.

Liberty Letters contributor Chris Adamo is a senior writer at GOPUSA.com

Victory for Freedom of Speech: University of Nevada Reno Abolishes Free Speech Zones

2006-06-30T13:48:00.000-07:00

FIRE Press Release

RENO, Nev., June 28, 2006—Students at the University of Nevada at Reno (UNR) are freer today, thanks to a new policy that designates the entire campus—save the interior of university buildings—as an “open public forum area.”

“We are thrilled that UNR has taken such decisive action to protect its students’ free speech rights,” stated Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). “This is truly a victory for liberty, and we commend the students and administrators who made this happen.”

As FIRE reported in April, the university’s previous policy designated only four small or remote areas on UNR’s campus as “‘public forum’ areas,” and explicitly deemed the rest of the campus a non-public forum. Student activists, working with FIRE and the ACLU of Nevada, protested this unconstitutional policy and proposed a new policy that would open the public university campus to free speech. The students worked closely with UNR administrators, who approved the policy earlier this month.

UNR rising junior James Girnus, who in April publicly challenged the university to abolish its free speech zones, is thrilled with the new policy. “I’m extremely proud of being a UNR student right now,” said Girnus. “A group of students was able to transform UNR’s unconstitutional zoned speech into a new free speech policy that encourages students to express themselves.”

FIRE’s work against so-called free speech zones began over four years ago at West Virginia University. After a long campaign of public pressure from FIRE, WVU finally abandoned its “free speech zones,” but the trend of confining free speech to small areas persists on many other campuses. Thanks to the hard work of UNR students and administrators, UNR is no longer one of these campuses.

“So-called free speech zones are an odd and highly inappropriate part of too many campuses’ policies these days. We hope that other universities will realize that free speech should not be quarantined on campus,” concluded FIRE’s Lukianoff. “We also hope that the hard work and great success of the UNR student activists will inspire students everywhere to stand up for the rights they deserve.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Nevada at Reno can be viewed at thefire.org/unr.

CONTACT:
Greg Lukianoff, President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; greg_lukianoff@thefire.org

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Democratic process is not enough to insure liberty, John Jay

2006-06-30T13:08:00.000-07:00

"[The United States will be safer] when a proportion of our people become well informed. Schools, colleges and churches are in my opinion essential to governments like ours." - American Founder, John Jay

Liberty Letters Comment: Education, religion and morality - these are the keys. Imposing a democratic styled government on a people who lack education in the essentials of succesful self-government, who lack moral restraint, and who in fact, care nothing for religious liberty, will never succeed to do anything but destabilize a region of the world, leading to less, not more liberty, more, not less violence, and more, not less power to the socialist international power structure which hopes to exploit such instability. Likewise, at home, as groups like the ACLU yank God and morality out of our schools, just where do we think our freedoms are headed? Someone once said, "Morality without knowledge is weak and useless, whilst knowledge without morality is dangerous and dreadful." Think about it - this is especially true of free societies, as founder John Jay suggested.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

The Federalist Papers, Number 11, Alexander Hamilton

2006-06-30T12:53:00.000-07:00

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION IN RESPECT TO COMMERCE AND A NAVY

THE importance of the Union, in a commercial light, is one of those points about which there is least room to entertain a difference of opinion, and which has, in fact, commanded the most general assent of men who have any acquaintance with the subject. This applies as well to our intercourse with foreign countries as with each other.

There are appearances to authorize a supposition that the adventurous spirit, which distinguishes the commercial character of America, has already excited uneasy sensations in several of the maritime powers of Europe. They seem to be apprehensive of our too great interference in that carrying trade, which is the support of their navigation and the foundation of their naval strength. Those of them which have colonies in America look forward to what this country is capable of becoming with painful solicitude. They foresee the dangers that may threaten their American dominions from the neighborhood of States, which have all the dispositions and would possess all the means requisite to the creation of a powerful marine. Impressions of this kind will naturally indicate the policy of fostering divisions among us and of depriving us, as far as possible, of an ACTIVE COMMERCE in our own bottoms. This would answer the threefold purpose of preventing our interference in their navigation, of monopolizing the profits of our trade, and of clipping the wings by which we might soar to a dangerous greatness. Did not prudence forbid the detail, it would not be difficult to trace, by facts, the workings of this policy to the cabinets of ministers.

If we continue united, we may counteract a policy so unfriendly to our prosperity in a variety of ways. By prohibitory regulations, extending at the same time throughout the States, we may oblige foreign countries to bid against each other for the privileges of our markets. This assertion will not appear chimerical to those who are able to appreciate the importance to any manufacturing nation of the markets of three millions of people—increasing in rapid progression, for the most part exclusively addicted to agriculture, and likely from local circumstances to remain in this disposition; and the immense difference there would be to the trade and navigation of such a nation, between a direct communication in its own ships and an indirect conveyance of its products and returns, to and from America, in the ships of another country. Suppose, for instance, we had a government in America capable of excluding Great Britain (with whom we have at present no treaty of commerce) from all our ports; what would be the probable operation of this step upon her politics? Would it not enable us to negotiate, with the fairest prospect of success, for commercial privileges of the most valuable and extensive kind in the dominions of that kingdom? When these questions have been asked upon other occasions, they have received a plausible, but not a solid or satisfactory answer. It has been said that prohibitions on our part would produce no change in the system of Britain, because she could prosecute her trade with us through the medium of the Dutch, who would be her immediate customers and paymasters for those articles which were wanted for the supply of our markets. But would not her navigation be materially injured by the loss of the important advantage of being her own carrier in that trade? Would not the principal part of its profits be intercepted by the Dutch as a compensation for their agency and risk? Would not the mere circumstance of freight occasion a considerable deduction? Would not so circuitous an intercourse facilitate the competitions of other nations, by enhancing the price of British commodities in our markets and by transferring to other hands the management of this interesting branch of the British commerce?

A mature consideration of the objects suggested by these questions will justify a belief that the real disadvantages to Great Britain from such a state of things, conspiring with the prepossessions of a great part of the nation in favor of the American trade and with the importunities of the West India islands, would produce a relaxation in her present system and would let us into the enjoyment of privileges in the markets of those islands and elsewhere, from which our trade would derive the most substantial benefits. Such a point gained from the British government, and which could not be expected without an equivalent in exemptions and immunities in our markets, would be likely to have a correspondent effect on the conduct of other nations, who would not be inclined to see themselves altogether supplanted in our trade.

A further resource for influencing the conduct of European nations towards us, in this respect, would arise from the establishment of a federal navy. There can be no doubt that the continuance of the Union under an efficient government would put it in our power, at a period not very distant, to create a navy which, if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight if thrown into the scale of either of two contending parties. This would be more particularly the case in relation to operations in the West Indies. A few ships of the line, sent opportunely to the reinforcement of either side, would often be sufficient to decide the fate of a campaign on the event of which interests of the greatest magnitude were suspended. Our position is in this respect a very commanding one. And if to this consideration we add that of the usefulness of supplies from this country, in the prosecution of military operations in the West Indies, it will readily be perceived that a situation so favorable would enable us to bargain with great advantage for commercial privileges. A price would be set not only upon our friendship, but upon our neutrality. By a steady adherence to the Union, we may hope, erelong, to become the arbiter of Europe in America, and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate.

But in the reverse of this eligible situation, we shall discover that the rivalships of the parts would make them checks upon each other and would frustrate all the tempting advantages which nature has kindly placed within our reach. In a state so insignificant our commerce would be a prey to the wanton intermeddlings of all nations at war with each other, who, having nothing to fear from us, would with little scruple or remorse supply their wants by depredations on our property as often as it fell in their way. The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral.

Under a vigorous national government, the natural strength and resources of the country, directed to a common interest, would baffle all the combinations of European jealousy to restrain our growth. This situation would even take away the motive to such combinations by inducing an impracticability of success. An active commerce, an extensive navigation, a flourishing marine would then be the inevitable offspring of moral and physical necessity. We might defy the little arts of little politicians to control or vary the irresistible and unchangeable course of nature.

But in a state of disunion, these combinations might exist and might operate with success. It would be in the power of the maritime nations, availing themselves of our universal impotence, to prescribe the conditions of our political existence; and as they have a common interest in being our carriers, and still more in preventing our being theirs, they would in all probability combine to embarrass our navigation in such a manner as would in effect destroy it and confine us to a PASSIVE COMMERCE. We should thus be compelled to content ourselves with the first price of our commodities and to see the profits of our trade snatched from us to enrich our enemies and persecutors. That unequaled spirit of enterprise, which signalizes the genius of the American merchants and navigators and which is in itself an inexhaustible mine of national wealth, would be stifled and lost, and poverty and disgrace would overspread a country which with wisdom might make herself the admiration and envy of the world.

There are rights of great moment to the trade of America which are rights of the Union—I allude to the fisheries, to the navigation of the lakes, and to that of the Mississippi. The dissolution of the Confederacy would give room for delicate questions concerning the future existence of these rights, which the interest of more powerful partners would hardly fail to solve to our disadvantage. The disposition of Spain with regard to the Mississippi needs no comment. France and Britain are concerned with us in the fisheries, and view them as of the utmost moment to their navigation. They, of course, would hardly remain long indifferent to that decided mastery of which experience has shown us to be possessed in this valuable branch of traffic and by which we are able to undersell those nations in their own markets. What more natural than that they should be disposed to exclude from the lists such dangerous competitors?

This branch of trade ought not to be considered as a partial benefit. All the navigating States may, in different degrees, advantageously participate in it, and under circumstances of a greater extension of mercantile capital would not be unlikely to do it. As a nursery of seamen, it now is, or, when time shall have more nearly assimilated the principles of navigation in the several States, will become a universal resource. To the establishment of a navy it must be indispensable.

To this great national object, a NAVY, union will contribute in various ways. Every institution will grow and flourish in proportion to the quantity and extent of the means concentered towards its formation and support. A navy of the United States, as it would embrace the resources of all, is an object far less remote than a navy of any single State or partial confederacy, which would only embrace the resources of a part. It happens, indeed, that different portions of confederated America possess each some peculiar advantage for this essential establishment. The more southern States furnish in greater abundance certain kinds of naval stores—tar, pitch, and turpentine. Their wood for the construction of ships is also of a more solid and lasting texture. The difference in the duration of the ships of which the navy might be composed, if chiefly constructed of Southern wood, would be of signal importance, either in the view of naval strength or of national economy. Some of the Southern and of the Middle States yield a greater plenty of iron, and of better quality. Seamen must chiefly be drawn from the Northern hive. The necessity of naval protection to external or maritime commerce, and the conduciveness of that species of commerce to the prosperity of a navy, are points too manifest to require a particular elucidation. They, by a kind of reaction, mutually beneficial, promote each other.

An unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions, not only for the supply of reciprocal wants at home, but for exportation to foreign markets. The veins of commerce in every part will be replenished and will acquire additional motion and vigor from a free circulation of the commodities of every part. Commercial enterprise will have much greater scope from the diversity in the productions of different States. When the staple of one fails from a bad harvest or unproductive crop, it can call to its aid the staple of another. The variety, not less than the value, of products for exportation contributes to the activity of foreign commerce. It can be conducted upon much better terms with a large number of materials of a given value than with a small number of materials of the same value, arising from the competitions of trade and from the fluctuations of markets. Particular articles may be in great demand at certain periods and unsaleable at others; but if there be a variety of articles, it can scarcely happen that they should all be at one time in the latter predicament, and on this account the operations of the merchant would be less liable to any considerable obstruction or stagnation. The speculative trader will at once perceive the force of these observations, and will acknowledge that the aggregate balance of the commerce of the United States would bid fair to be much more favorable than that of the thirteen States without union or with partial unions.

It may perhaps be replied to this that whether the States are united or disunited there would still be an intimate intercourse between them which would answer the same ends; but this intercourse would be fettered, interrupted, and narrowed by a multiplicity of causes, which in the course of these papers have been amply detailed. A unity of commercial, as well as political, interests can only result from a unity of government.

There are other points of view in which this subject might be placed, of a striking and animating kind. But they would lead us too far into the regions of futurity, and would involve topics not proper for a newspaper discussion. I shall briefly observe that our situation invites and our interests prompt us to aim at an ascendant in the system of American affairs. The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has in different degrees extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia, and America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the mistress of the world, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have in direct terms attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America—that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere.19 Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the European.20 It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will add another victim to his triumphs. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!

PUBLIUS [Hamilton]

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Faith in God will triumph over tyranny, President Ronald Reagan

2006-06-02T18:35:00.000-07:00

In 1987 as Pope John Paul prepared to visit his Polish homeland, U.S. President Ronald Reagan spoke to him of the upward reach of man toward God, and prophetically saw of its ultimate victory over the forces of tyranny in the old communist empire. These are his words - may they inspire you as they inspired me:

"As you embark on a pastoral visit to the land of your birth, Poland, be assured that the hearts of the American people are with you. Our prayers will go with you in profound hope that soon the hand of God will lighten the terrible burden of brave people everywhere who yearn for freedom, even as all men and women yearn for the freedom that God gave us all when he gave us a free will. We see the power of the spiritual force in that troubled land, uniting a people in hope, just as we see the powerful stirrings to the East of a belief that will not die despite generations of oppression. Perhaps it's not too much to hope that true change will come to all countries that now deny or hinder the freedom to worship God. And perhaps we'll see that change comes through the reemergence of faith, through the irresistible power of a religious renewal. For despite all the attempts to extinguish it, the people's faith burns with a passionate heat; once allowed to breathe free, that faith will burn so brightly it will light the world."

Public Papers of the Presidents, Reagan, 1987, p.614

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

The Federalist Papers, Number 10, James Madison

2006-06-02T18:17:00.000-07:00

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished, as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements and alarm for private rights which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administration.

By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that where no substantial occasion presents itself the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufacturers be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufacturers? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which alone this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are most favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations.

In the first place it is to be remarked that however small the republic may be the representatives must be raised to a certain number in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that however large it may be they must be limited to a certain number in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the constituents, and being proportionally greatest in the small republic, it follows that if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to center on men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy in controlling the effects of faction is enjoyed by a large over a small republic—is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does this advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union increase this security? Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here again the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it, in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government, And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of federalists.

PUBLIUS [Madison]

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Jefferson's Religion Policy at the University of Virginia

2006-06-01T14:57:00.000-07:00

The phrase "an establishment of religion" may have been intended by Congress to be aimed only at a state church. When the First Amendment was pending in Congress in substantially its present form, Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be that Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

Passing years, however, have brought about acceptance of a broader meaning, although never until today, I believe, has this Court widened its interpretation to any such degree as holding that recognition of the interest of our nation in religion, through the granting, to qualified representatives of the principal faiths, of opportunity to present religion as an optional, extracurricular subject during released school time in public school buildings, was equivalent to an establishment of religion. A reading of the general statements of eminent statesmen of former days, referred to in the opinions in this case and in Everson v. Board of Education, supra, will show that circumstances such as those in this case were far from the minds of the authors. The words and spirit of those statements may be wholeheartedly accepted without in the least impugning the judgment of the State of Illinois.

Mr. Jefferson, as one of the founders of the University of Virginia, a school which, from its establishment in 1819, has been wholly governed, managed and controlled by the State of Virginia, 9 was faced with the same problem that is before this Court today: the question of the Constitutional limitation upon religious education in public schools. In his annual report as Rector, to the President and Directors of the Literary Fund, dated October 7, 1822, approved by the Visitors of the University of whom Mr. Madison was one, 10 Mr. Jefferson set forth his views at some length. 11 These suggestions of Mr. Jefferson were [333 U.S. 246] adopted 12 and ch. II, § 1, of the Regulations of the University of October 4, 1824, provided that

Should the religious sects of this State, or any of them, according to the invitation held out to them, establish within, or adjacent to, the precincts of the University, schools for instruction in the religion of their sect, the students of the University will be free, and expected to attend religious worship at the establishment of their respective sects, in the morning, and in time to meet their school in the University at its stated hour.

Thus, the "wall of separation between church and State" that Mr. Jefferson built at the University which he founded did not exclude religious education from that school. The difference between the generality of his statements on the separation of church and state and the specificity of his conclusions on education are considerable. A rule of law should not be drawn from a figure of speech.

Reed, J., dissenting, McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

The Federalist Papers, Number 9, Alexander Hamilton

2006-06-01T14:40:00.000-07:00

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DOMESTIC FACTION AND INSURRECTION

A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrasts to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open themselves to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the luster of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.

From the disorders that disfigure the annals of those republics the advocates of despotism have drawn arguments, not only against the forms of republican government, but against the very principles of civil liberty. They have decried all free government as inconsistent with the order of society, and have indulged themselves in malicious exultation over its friends and partisans. Happily for mankind, stupendous fabrics reared on the basis of liberty, which have flourished for ages, have, in a few glorious instances, refuted their gloomy sophisms. And, I trust, America will be the broad and solid foundation of other edifices, not less magnificent, which will be equally permanent monuments of their errors.

But it is not to be denied that the portraits they have sketched of republican government were too just copies of the originals from which they were taken. If it had been found impracticable to have devised models of a more perfect structure, the enlightened friends to liberty would have been obliged to abandon the cause of that species of government as indefensible. The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature by deputies of their own election: these are wholly new discoveries, or have made their principal progress towards perfection in modern times. They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellencies of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. To this catalogue of circumstances that tend to the amelioration of popular systems of civil government, I shall venture, however novel it may appear to some, to add one more, on a principle which has been made the foundation of an objection to the new Constitution; I mean the ENLARGEMENT of the ORBIT within which such systems are to revolve, either in respect to the dimensions of a single State, or to the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy. The latter is that which immediately concerns the object under consideration. It will, however, be of use to examine the principle in its application to a single State, which shall be attended to in another place.

The utility of a Confederacy, as well to suppress faction and to guard the internal tranquillity of States as to increase their external force and security, is in reality not a new idea. It has been practiced upon in different countries and ages, and has received the sanction of the most applauded writers on the subjects of politics. The opponents of the PLAN proposed have, with great assiduity, cited and circulated the observations of Montesquieu on the necessity of a contracted territory for a republican government.17 But they seem not to have been apprised of the sentiments of that great man expressed in another part of his work, nor to have adverted to the consequences of the principle to which they subscribe with such ready acquiescence.

When Montesquieu recommends a small extent for republics, the standards he had in view were of dimensions far short of the limits of almost every one of these States. Neither Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, nor Georgia can by any means be compared with the models from which he reasoned and to which the terms of his description apply. If we therefore take his ideas on this point as the criterion of truth, we shall be driven to the alternative either of taking refuge at once in the arms of monarchy, or of splitting ourselves into an infinity of little, jealous, clashing, tumultuous commonwealths, the wretched nurseries of unceasing discord and the miserable objects of universal pity or contempt. Some of the writers who have come forward on the other side of the question seem to have been aware of the dilemma; and have even been bold enough to hint at the division of the larger States as a desirable thing. Such an infatuated policy, such a desperate expedient, might, by the multiplication of petty offices, answer the views of men who possess not qualifications to extend their influence beyond the narrow circles of personal intrigue, but it could never promote the greatness or happiness of the people of America.

Referring the examination of the principle itself to another place, as has been already mentioned, it will be sufficient to remark here that, in the sense of the author who has been most emphatically quoted upon the occasion, it would only dictate a reduction of the SIZE of the more considerable MEMBERS of the Union, but would not militate against their being all comprehended in one confederate government. And this is the true question, in the discussion of which we are at present interested.

So far are the suggestions of Montesquieu from standing in opposition to a general Union of the States that he explicitly treats of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC as the expedient for extending the sphere of popular government and reconciling the advantages of monarchy with those of republicanism.

"It is very probable" (says he18) "that mankind would have been obliged at length to live constantly under the government of a SINGLE PERSON, had they not contrived a kind of constitution that has all the internal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical, government. I mean a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC.

"This form of government is a convention by which several smaller states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to form. It is a kind of assemblage of societies that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of new associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the united body.

"A republic of this kind, able to withstand an external force, may support itself without any internal corruptions. The form of this society prevents all manner of inconveniences.

"If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped, and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.

"Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states, the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.

"As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies."

I have thought it proper to quote at length these interesting passages, because they contain a luminous abridgment of the principal arguments in favor of the Union, and must effectually remove the false impressions which a misapplication of other parts of the world was calculated to produce. They have, at the same time, an intimate connection with the more immediate design of this paper, which is to illustrate the tendency of the Union to repress domestic faction and insurrection.

A distinction, more subtle than accurate, has been raised between a confederacy and a consolidation of the States. The essential characteristic of the first is said to be the restriction of its authority to the members in their collective capacities, without reaching to the individuals of whom they are composed. It is contended that the national council ought to have no concern with any object of internal administration. An exact equality of suffrage between the members has also been insisted upon as a leading feature of a confederate government. These positions are, in the main, arbitrary; they are supported neither by principle nor precedent. It has indeed happened that governments of this kind have generally operated in the manner which the distinction, taken notice of, supposes to be inherent in their nature; but there have been in most of them extensive exceptions to the practice, which serve to prove, as far as example will go, that there is no absolute rule on the subject. And it will be clearly shown, in the course of this investigation, that as far as the principle contended for has prevailed, it has been the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government.

The definition of a confederate republic seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies," or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

In the Lycian confederacy, which consisted of twenty-three CITIES, or republics, the largest were entitled to three votes in the COMMON COUNCIL, those of the middle class to two, and the smallest to one. The COMMON COUNCIL had the appointment of all the judges and magistrates of the respective CITIES. This was certainly the most delicate species of interference in their internal administration; for if there be any thing that seems exclusively appropriated to the local jurisdictions, it is the appointment of their own officers. Yet Montesquieu, speaking of this association, says: "Were I to give a model of an excellent Confederate Republic, it would be that of Lycia." Thus we perceive that the distinctions insisted upon were not within the contemplation of this enlightened civilian; and we shall be led to conclude that they are the novel refinements of an erroneous theory.

PUBLIUS [Hamilton]

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Roy Moore, the Imperial Congress, and the Rule of Law, by Christopher G. Adamo

2006-06-01T14:24:00.000-07:00

When Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore defied an order from Federal Judge Myron Thompson in 2003, and refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, he was summarily expelled from office under the pretense that America is a nation of laws, not of men.

Moore contended that those laws could not define or promote a healthy and free society if they were established or enforced as the result of arbitrary whims of those in power. Thus, he asserted that moral and ethical absolutes, as codified in the Ten Commandments, have been and should remain as the basis for American law.

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union, aided and abetted by their toadies in the media, were quick to warn our society of the dangers it faced if Moore’s insolence was allowed to go uncontested. Furthermore, even many on the right who detest the agenda and strategy of the ACLU were nonetheless in agreement that Moore ought not be allowed to retain his position.

Sadly, the government of the State of Alabama proceeded to carry the water for the ACLU by pursuing Moore with a zeal it never displayed when attempting to defend itself against that organization. Ultimately, Moore became another victim of a federal judge who himself had perverted not only the law, but the Constitution itself.

Among institutional “lawbreakers,” Moore is hardly alone. Yet in comparison to other violations of U.S. law being perpetrated at the highest levels of government, what are the real consequences to the rest of America of Moore’s actions? Admittedly, he may have “offended” the God-hating liberals at the ACLU, but most of America perceived no threat or impending danger from him.

While the ultimate propriety of Moore’s action could still be debated, his contention that a society which rejects the boundaries of absolute truth is on the road to collapse, has since proven prescient to the point of being nearly prophetic.

Some abominable events of the past week only serve to solidify this notion. The duplicity of Congressman William Jefferson (D.-LA) is likely a greater crime against the nation by far, since hard evidence suggests that he is involved in major corruption and an institutional cover-up.

But even Jefferson’s behavior pales in comparison to lawlessness prevailing in the United States Senate, where duly enacted laws are simply being ignored and the borders of the nation are thus being systematically destroyed.

The United States Senate has now passed its immigration “reform” bill. Despite the claims of the bill’s proponents, if implemented in its current form, it would grant amnesty to the flood of illegals presently invading the country.

The Senate relentlessly pursued this course with absolute indifference to the concerns and well being of the American people. Instead the nearly universal consideration of the Senate was how such a bill might affect its own standing and future.

Furthermore, the arrogant reaction of the bill’s key Senate advocates to their critics has been to disparage and demean them as bigoted or insensitive. Hence, legitimate debate on the issue all but vanished, and any remaining discussion is conducted according to the intellectually bankrupt premises of the “political correct.”

With each passing day, it becomes ever more obvious that government, from the local to the national level, perceives itself to be in the business of accruing power and wealth, while “We the people” are increasingly relegated to the status of serf, resource, and ultimately, state property.

In keeping with the arrogant and elitist mindset of those inside the Beltway who regard themselves as an elected aristocracy, consider the overwhelming Congressional response to the FBI raid and seizure of incriminating evidence in the office of William Jefferson.

In one of those odd displays of “bipartisanship” (which increasingly reflect Washington pitting itself against real America), major spokesmen from both parties condemned the FBI action as a violation of the “separation of powers.”

Apparently, many members of Congress see themselves as somehow above the laws meant to control and maintain the peasantry in its subservient condition. The overwhelming reaction from the Congress can only be construed to indicate that Jefferson and his kind should be immune to scrutiny as long as they maintain the evidence of their criminal activity within its hallowed halls.

Meanwhile, out in the hinterlands, Judge Moore made the bold and courageous move that represents the only recourse for an individual who seeks to correct the wrongs of such an inherently flawed and hypocritical system. He decided to run for Governor of Alabama.

Hardly seeking to foment a movement of defiance against the law, Moore merely recognized the degree to which lawlessness has already overtaken our governing institutions, regardless of which political party holds dominance. In stark contrast to those who regularly acquiesce to the opposition in hopes of getting along, Moore has already proven that he will put principle above politics and personal gain, regardless of the cost to him.

The country is being increasingly ravaged by an ongoing series of issues that the political class refuses to effectively confront, either because of the enormity of special interests seeking to define them, or from fear of the “pc” armies waiting to politically assassinate any who dare to deviate from their orthodoxy.

Only such a person as Roy Moore could be expected to possess the courage and steadfastness sufficient to tackle the difficult issues threatening to cripple America and eradicate its future. Win or lose, he is showing the nation what needs to be done if it is to have any hope of restoration.

Godspeed Judge Moore.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

All men made in the image and likeness of God, Ronald Reagan

2006-05-31T13:57:00.000-07:00

Because we are made in the image and likeness of God — because we are as one on this planet—let us this week renew our commitment to a world where our Nation and all nations grow and prosper together in a spirit of love and brotherhood. - President Ronald Reagan, February 13, 1981

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

The frank goal of communism, Olgin

2006-05-31T13:43:00.000-07:00

We Communists say that there is one way to abolish the capitalist State, and that is to smash it by force. To make Communism possible, the workers must take hold of the State machinery of capitalism and destroy it. - Olgin, published first in 1933 by the Workers Library Publishers

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

The Very Defnition of Tyranny, James Madison

2006-05-31T13:28:00.000-07:00

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. - James Madison, The Federalist Papers, Number 47

Liberty Letters comment: So goes the very definition of tyranny, and yet we see it occurring in our day at the U.N., in budding regional governments (so-called "trade arrangements"), in regulatory (administrative law) agencies on the international, national, and state levels, and in the U.S. Supreme Court. So where is our protest, alarm, outrage, and action? If we neglect to take measure against such tyrannical accumulations of power, don't we deserve the tyranny that follows? But I think better of the American people. The time has come (indeed we see the signs everywhere) to reign in real and budding tyrannies. And reign them in we will, if we are educated, organized, action oriented, determined, enduring, and ever vigilant. We can and will turn the tide.

The Federalist Papers, Number 8, Alexander Hamilton

2006-05-31T13:02:00.000-07:00

THE EFFECTS OF INTERNAL WAR IN PRODUCING STANDING ARMIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS UNFRIENDLY TO LIBERTY

ASSUMING it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.

War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war in that quarter of the globe is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken, of battles that decide nothing, of retreats more beneficial than victories, of much effort and little acquisition.

In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one State open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. PLUNDER and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one, safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is thence inferred that they may exist under it. This inference, from the very form of the proposition, is, at best, problematical and uncertain.16 But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States, or confederacies, would first have recourse to them to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction towards monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States, or confederacies, that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States, or confederacies, would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the old world. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.

These are not vague inferences drawn from supposed or speculative defects in a Constitution, the whole power of which is lodged in the hands of a people, or their representatives and delegates, but they are solid conclusions, drawn from the natural and necessary progress of human affairs.

It may, perhaps, be asked, by way of objection to this, why did not standing armies spring up out of the contentions which so often distracted the ancient republics of Greece? Different answers, equally satisfactory, may be given to this question. The industrious habits of the people of the present day, absorbed in the pursuits of gain and devoted to the improvements of agriculture and commerce, are incompatible with the condition of a nation of soldiers, which was the true condition of the people of those republics. The means of revenue, which have been so greatly multiplied by the increase of gold and silver and of the arts of industry, and the science of finance, which is the offspring of modern times, concurring with the habits of nations, have produced an entire revolution in the system of war, and have rendered disciplined armies, distinct from the body of the citizens, the inseparable companion of frequent hostility.

There is a wide difference, also, between military establishments in a country seldom exposed by its situation to internal invasions, and in one which is often subject to them and always apprehensive of them. The rulers of the former can have no good pretext, if they are even so inclined, to keep on foot armies so numerous as must of necessity be maintained in the latter. These armies being, in the first case, rarely if at all called into activity for interior defense, the people are in no danger of being broken to military subordination. The laws are not accustomed to relaxation in favor of military exigencies; the civil state remains in full vigor, neither corrupted, nor confounded with the principles or propensities of the other state. The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an overmatch for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights.

The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people.

In a country in the predicament last described, the contrary of all this happens. The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theater of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements of their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power.

The kingdom of Great Britain falls within the first description. An insular situation, and a powerful marine, guarding it in a great measure against the possibility of foreign invasion, supersede the necessity of a numerous army within the kingdom. A sufficient force to make head against a sudden descent, till the militia could have time to rally and embody, is all that has been deemed requisite. No motive of national policy has demanded, nor would public opinion have tolerated, a larger number of troops upon its domestic establishment. There has been, for a long time past, little room for the operation of the other causes, which have been enumerated as the consequences of internal war. This peculiar felicity of situation has, in a great degree, contributed to preserve the liberty which that country to this day enjoys, in spite of the prevalent venality and corruption. If, on the contrary, Britain had been situated on the continent, and had been compelled, as she would have been, by that situation, to make her military establishments at home coextensive with those of the other great powers of Europe, she, like them, would in all probability be, at this day, a victim to the absolute power of a single man. 'Tis possible, though not easy, that the people of that island may be enslaved from other causes; but it cannot be by the prowess of an army so inconsiderable as that which has been usually kept up within the kingdom.

If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of European liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.

This is an idea not superficial nor futile, but solid and weighty. It deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn pause, and meditate dispassionately on the importance of this interesting idea; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with trivial objections to a Constitution, the rejection of which would in all probability put a final period to the Union. The airy phantoms that flit before the distempered imaginations of some of its adversaries would quickly give place to the more substantial prospects of dangers, real, certain, and formidable.

PUBLIUS [Hamilton]

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Venezuela Spending Billions on Defense

2006-05-31T11:32:00.000-07:00

NewsMax.com. CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuela is buying helicopters, boats and military transport planes in defense deals worth about $2.7 billion, modernizing its military as tensions grow between leftist President Hugo Chavez and the United States.

Flush with oil profits but blocked from buying U.S. arms, Chavez is increasingly looking to countries like Russia and Spain as suppliers.

A cargo ship carrying 30,000 Russian-made Kalashnikov assault rifles is headed to Venezuela with the first shipment of an order totaling 100,000 guns to arrive by year's end. The military is looking to buy more submarines, and Chavez is planning an even bigger deal for Russian fighter jets.

"The United States is failing in its attempt to blockade us, to disarm us," Chavez said after announcing the first shipment of Kalashnikovs.

Washington has pointed to the mounting defense deals with concern and urged Russia and Spain not to do business with Venezuela. Both countries have shrugged off the warnings.

Read more on this vital issue at NewsMax.com

Liberty Letters comment: Will the U.S. enforce the Monroe Doctrine as another Communist implant arises in the Americas? As Liberty Letters has made clear, Chavez is a growing and serious threat that must be nipped in the bud now, not later (when the danger and implications of inaction are far greater). Yet a more fundamental question is this: Is not the arrival of communist hardliner Hugo Chavez the result of a set policy of U.S. interventionism in South and Central America, one that has favored leftist political and economic models (so-called middle of the road ones), rather than true limited government and lessee-faire models?

Thus, in some respects, this has been the Monroe Doctrine in reverse. Our State Department has led the way in implanting the very sort of foreign economic and political order (foreign to our founding principles) that it was intended to prevent. Here's the key: it just isn't as big a step from soft socialism to hard communism as the 'scholars' claim. As Lenin predicted as to the fall of the West, the step from a socialist (or fascist) system can and will occur at the drop of a dime.

Heaven-favored American beginnings, John Jay

2006-05-30T18:07:00.000-07:00

Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon, and choosing the forms of government under which they should live. - John Jay, 1776

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

It will take people of faith to save the Constitution, Harold B. Lee

2006-05-30T17:51:00.000-07:00

"Would it be sacrilegious to paraphrase the words of the Apostle Peter, and say that the Constitution of the United States could be saved by the elders of this Church because this Church and this Church alone has the words of eternal life? We alone know by revelation as to how the Constitution came into being, and we, alone, know by revelation the destiny of this nation. The preservation of `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' can be guaranteed upon no other basis than upon a sincere faith and testimony of the divinity of these teachings." - President Harold B. Lee, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Conference Report, October 1952, p. 18.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Taxation by consent, limited government, and local power, ought to be the issue ... by Steve Farrell

2006-05-30T15:12:00.000-07:00

I continue to receive letters by private property advocates that misundertand the American Founders point about taxation. The protest against mother England was not about the rightness of the power to tax, but the wrongness of taxation without consent, that is, "taxation without representation."

Slavery was the destiny of the people who stood by and did nothing when taxed without consent, they reasoned.

The colonists first petitioned, then protested, and finally went to war to maintain their right to consent. But all the while they taxed themselves (via their state governments), before, during, and after the war.

One body, during the Revolutionary War, did not have this power - the Continental Congress (or budding Federal Government). They could only "request" monies from the states - who more often than not, failed to deliver. This almost cost us the war, as well as the peace afterward, and thus our liberties.

Founder John Jay, President of the Continental Congress remarked at the time that "[Taxes were] the price of liberty, the peace and the safety of yourselves and posterity." Americans should never let it be said, he continued, "that America had no sooner become independent than she became insolvent," or that "her infant glories and growing fame were obscured and tarnished by broken contracts and violated faith."

But contracts and faith were indeed violated. Soldiers went without salaries (they nearly marched on Congress to collect), foreign loans went unpaid (which made America appear less than honorable - and threatened yet other wars), the Continental Dollar became worthless, and fortunes, great and small were lost. America's fate hung precariously in the balance.

The establishment of a federal government that was finally empowered to tax and enforce that tax, saved the day.

The power to tax is not evil. What matters is consent. What matters is that that taxation be limited to enumerated powers. What matters is that the majority of taxation ought to take place locally where elected officials are easiest to hold accountable. And so the issue today is to return the majority of governing back to the states, the counties, the cities, and the people. In most cases: the more local, the better.

Even welfare, which is socialist in nature, isn't true socialism so long as consent is maintained. But the Founders believed, and believed it firmly, that if there were such plans in place AT ALL (and some were even back then), that they had to be locally funded and controlled. This is the key to a wise and accountable sort of state welfare: keep it local; but even better, where church groups and other charities are in place, keep it private.

Jay quote source: Burnett, "Continental Congress," 413, Ferguson, "Power of the Purse," 32; as quoted in Walter Stahr's, "John Jay," 107-108.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Before There Were Parties ...

2006-05-30T12:32:00.000-07:00

"Perhaps most limiting [on the power of the executive], the President could not influence events through his political party, because there were no political parties. There were, to be sure, predictable paterns on some issues, such as when the New England delegates voted to defend their fishing rights. But on many other issues, voting was far from predictable. Delegates who voted together on one issue would often vote against one another on another issue. Indeed, the delegates viewed the very words "party" or "faction" as insults." - Walter Stahr commenting in "John Jay," pgs. 95-96, on the power limiting realities of the President of the Continental Congress in 1778, when John Jay was serving in that position.

Liberty Letters commment: Party spirit is at the core of what is wrong with the American conservative movement, which movement might, if it backed away from party spirit and toward an unflinching loyalty to moral principle and limited government under the Constitution, save this country. Likewise, reigning in executive power, rather than enlarging it to win 'conservative' victories, is key to our political salvation. Dedication to 'party first' has blinded conservatives to an immense centrist power grab under the current 'conservative' administration in Washington. A principle centered movement would guard against absolute power regardless of who wields that power - for the lesson of the ages is that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

The Federalist Papers, Number 7, Alexander Hamilton

2006-05-30T12:13:00.000-07:00

THE SUBJECT CONTINUED
AND PARTICULAR CAUSES ENUMERATED

IT IS sometimes asked, with an air of seeming triumph, what inducements could the States have, if disunited, to make war upon each other? It would be a full answer to this question to say—precisely the same inducements which have, at different times, deluged in blood all the nations in the world. But, unfortunately for us, the question admits of a more particular answer. There are causes of differences within our immediate contemplation, of the tendency of which, even under the restraints of a federal constitution, we have had sufficient experience to enable us to form a judgment of what might be expected if those restraints were removed.

Territorial disputes have at all times been found one of the most fertile sources of hostility among nations. Perhaps the greatest proportion of wars that have desolated the earth have sprung from this origin, This cause would exist among us in full force. We have a vast tract of unsettled territory within the boundaries of the United States. There still are discordant and undecided claims between several of them, and the dissolution of the Union would lay a foundation for similar claims between them all. It is well known that they have heretofore had serious and animated discussions concerning the right to the lands which were ungranted at the time of the Revolution, and which usually went under the name of crown lands. The States within the limits of whose colonial governments they were comprised have claimed them as their property, the others have contended that the rights of the crown in this article devolved upon the Union; especially as to all that part of the Western territory which, either by actual possession, or through the submission of the Indian proprietors, was subjected to the jurisdiction of the king of Great Britain, till it was relinquished in the treaty of peace. This, it has been said, was at all events an acquisition to the Confederacy by compact with a foreign power. It has been the prudent policy of Congress to appease this controversy, by prevailing upon the States to make cessions to the United States for the benefit of the whole. This has been so far accomplished as, under a continuation of the Union, to afford a decided prospect of an amicable termination of the dispute. A dismemberment of the Confederacy, however, would revive this dispute, and would create others on the same subject. At present a large part of the vacant Western territory is, by cession at least, if not by any anterior right, the common property of the Union. If that were at an end, the States which have made cessions on a principle of federal compromise, would be apt, when the motive of the grant had ceased, to reclaim the lands as a reversion. The other States would no doubt insist on a proportion by right of representation. Their argument would be that a grant once made could not be revoked; and that the justice of their participating in territory acquired or secured by the joint efforts of the Confederacy remained undiminished. If, contrary to probability, it should be admitted by all the States that each had a right to a share of this common stock, there would still be a difficulty to be surmounted as to a proper rule of apportionment. Different principles would be sent up by different States for this purpose; and as they would affect the opposite interests of the parties, they might not easily be susceptible of a pacific adjustment.

In the wide field of Western territory, therefore, we perceive an ample theater for hostile pretensions, without any umpire or common judge to interpose between the contending parties. To reason from the past to the future, we shall have good ground to apprehend that the sword would sometimes be appealed to as the arbiter of their differences. The circumstances of the dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, respecting the lands at Wyoming, admonish us not to be sanguine in expecting an easy accommodation of such differences. The Articles of Confederation obliged the parties to submit the matter to the decision of a federal court. The submission was made, and the court decided in favor of Pennsylvania. But Connecticut gave strong indications of dissatisfaction with that determination; nor did she appear to be entirely resigned to it, till, by negotiation and management, something like an equivalent was found for the loss she supposed herself to have sustained. Nothing here said is intended to convey the slightest censure on the conduct of that State. She no doubt sincerely believed herself to have been injured by the decision; and States, like individuals, acquiesce with great reluctance in determinations to their disadvantage.

Those who had an opportunity of seeing the inside of the transactions which attended the progress of the controversy between this State and the district of Vermont can vouch the opposition we experienced, as well from States not interested as from those which were interested in the claim, and can attest the danger to which the peace of the Confederacy might have been exposed, had this State attempted to assert its rights by force. Two motives preponderated in that opposition: one, a jealousy entertained of our future power; and the other, the interest of certain individuals of influence in the neighboring States, who had obtained grants of land under the actual government of that district. Even the States which brought forward claims in contradiction to ours seemed more solicitous to dismember this State, than to establish their own pretensions. These were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. New Jersey and Rhode Island upon all occasions discovered a warm zeal for the independence of Vermont; and Maryland, until alarmed by the appearance of a connection between Canada and that place, entered deeply into the same views. These, being small States, saw with an unfriendly eye the perspective of our growing greatness. In a review of these transactions we may trace some of the causes which would be likely to embroil the States with each other, if it should be their unpropitious destiny to become disunited.

Competitions of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention. The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and exclusions, which would beget discontent. The habits of intercourse, on the basis of equal privileges, to which we have been accustomed since the earliest settlement of the country would give a keener edge to those causes of discontent than they would naturally have independent of this circumstance. We should be ready to denominate injuries those things which were in reality the justifiable acts of independent sovereignties consulting a distinct interest. The spirit of enterprise, which characterizes the commercial part of America, has left no occasion of displaying itself unimproved. It is not at all probable that this unbridled spirit would pay much respect to those regulations of trade by which particular States might endeavor to secure exclusive benefits to their own citizens. The infractions of these regulations, on one side, the efforts to prevent and repel them, on the other, would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.

The opportunities which some States would have of rendering other tributary to them by commercial regulations would be impatiently submitted to by the tributary States. The relative situation of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey would afford an example of this kind. New York, from the necessities of revenue, must lay duties on her importations. A great part of these duties must be paid by the inhabitants of the two other States in the capacity of consumers of what we import. New York would neither be willing nor able to forgo this advantage. Her citizens would not consent that a duty paid by them should be remitted in favor of the citizens of her neighbors; nor would it be practicable, if there were not this impediment in the way, to distinguish the customers in our own markets. Would Connecticut and New Jersey long submit to be taxed by New York for her exclusive benefit? Should we be long permitted to remain in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of a metropolis, from the possession of which we derived an advantage so odious to our neighbors, and, in their opinion, so oppressive? Should we be able to preserve it against the incumbent weight of Connecticut on the one side, and the co-operating pressure of New Jersey on the other? These are questions that temerity alone will answer in the affirmative.

The public debt of the Union would be a further cause of collision between the separate States or confederacies. The apportionment, in the first instance, and the progressive extinguishment afterwards, would be alike productive of ill humor and animosity. How would it be possible to agree upon a rule of apportionment satisfactory to all? There is scarcely any that can be proposed which is entirely free from real objections. These, as usual, would be exaggerated by the adverse interests of the parties. There are even dissimilar views among the States as to the general principle of discharging the public debt. Some of them, either less impressed with the importance of national credit, or because their citizens have little, if any, immediate interest in the question, feel an indifference, if not a repugnance, to the payment of the domestic debt at any rate. These would be inclined to magnify the difficulties of a distribution. Others of them, a numerous body of whose citizens are creditors to the public beyond the proportion of the State in the total amount of the national debt, would be strenuous for some equitable and effective provision. The procrastinations of the former would excite the resentments of the latter. The settlement of a rule would, in the meantime, be postponed by real differences of opinion and affected delays. The citizens of the States interested would clamor; foreign powers would urge for the satisfaction of their just demands, and the peace of the States would be hazarded to the double contingency of external invasion in internal contention.

Suppose the difficulties of agreeing upon a rule surmounted and the apportionment made. Still there is great room to suppose that the rule agreed upon would, upon experiment, be found to bear harder upon some States than upon others. Those which were sufferers by it would naturally seek for a mitigation of the burden. The others would as naturally be disinclined to a revision, which was likely to end in an increase of their own incumbrances. Their refusal would be too plausible a pretext to the complaining States to withhold their contributions, not to be embraced with avidity; and the noncompliance of these States with their engagements would be a ground of bitter dissension and altercation. If even the rule adopted should in practice justify the equality of its principle, still delinquencies in payment on the part of some of the States would result from a diversity of other causes—the real deficiency of resources; the mismanagement of their finances; accidental disorders in the administration of the government; and, in addition to the rest, the reluctance with which men commonly part with money for purposes that have outlived the exigencies which produced them and interfere with the supply of immediate wants. Delinquencies, from whatever causes, would be productive of complaints, recriminations, and quarrels. There is, perhaps, nothing more likely to disturb the tranquillity of nations than their being bound to mutual contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and coincident benefit. For it is an observation, as true as it is trite, that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of money.

Laws in violation of private contracts, as they amount to aggressions on the rights of those States whose citizens are injured by them, may be considered as another probable source of hostility. We are not authorized to expect that a more liberal or more equitable spirit would preside over the legislations of the individual States hereafter, if unrestrained by any additional checks, than we have heretofore seen in too many instances disgracing their several codes. We have observed the disposition to retaliation excited in Connecticut, in consequence of the enormities perpetrated by the legislature of Rhode Island; and we reasonably infer that, in similar cases under other circumstances, a war, not of parchment, but of the sword, would chastise such atrocious breaches of moral obligation and social justice.

The probability of incompatible alliances between the different States, or confederacies, and different foreign nations, and the effects of this situation upon the peace of the whole, have been sufficiently unfolded in some preceding papers. From the view they have exhibited of this part of the subject, this conclusion is to be drawn, that America, if not connected at all, or only by the feeble tie of a simple league, offensive and defensive, would, by the operation of such jarring alliances, be gradually entangled in all the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars; and by the destructive contentions of the parts into which she was divided, would be likely to become a prey to the artifices and machinations of powers equally the enemies of them all. Divide et impera15 must be the motto of every nation that either hates or fears us.

PUBLIUS [Hamilton]

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Compassionate Conservatism: Not So Compassionate, Not So Conservative, by Steve Farrell

2006-05-30T10:46:00.000-07:00

Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 3

Things are not always as they seem. Marxism's war on religion presents evidence-a-plenty that this notion is true.

From both the left, in the name of Social Democracy, and from the right, in the name of Secular Government, Marx's Atheistic teammates have pushed, shoved and pressed upon religion in public life until a bipartisan squeeze has effectively crushed what was once publicly pervasive into the less than popular enclave of that which is now publicly suppressed.

Christianity, today, though tarred and feathered, spit upon and lied about, has not given up however, and thanks be to God has begun to grow up, wake up, and in many instances live up to its duty to fight back.

Good news.

But not necessarily good enough – for while many Christians have come to table fully arrayed in the armor of God, with faith and reason, love and patience, perseverance and persistence, moral courage and good works, doing what ever it takes, and then some, to slow, check, and at times, reverse our nation's amoral freefall into possible oblivion; there are other Christians, some of them Christian ministers, sad to say, that are among our worst enemies, whether by intent or not.

They are the sort who, when the going gets tough, look not to themselves or to God, or to both, but to the state to bail them out, or lift them up, or even in fairly good times to move them forward (in their careers), as if God and His congregation, and their own two strong hands aren't good enough to take them where they need to go, to do what they need to do, without a state subsidy, or a dole, or a handout, or a cushy cushion.

That's a problem. For there are also many in the state, or a great number who are vying for power within the state, who are more than willing to oblige whatever beggar comes along in rags or in robes, if it means more votes, more recognition, and for the very few dedicated ideologues among them, an advancement of the ubiquitous revolution of Marx & Lenin.

Enter Compassionate Conservatism, a ‘safe' middle ground approach, call it an ‘inclusive' approach if you will (for it has a little bit of something for everyone), that mixes the best of Communism (come again? – ‘its charitable nature,' they say) with the best of Capitalism (‘its efficiency'); and discards the worst of both (Communism's sluggish bureaucracy; Capitalism's heartlessness; – we lessee-fairists are all ‘dog eat dog Scrooges' you know!), with it seems, this hidden goal, in the short run to exploit yet another group for a few million votes, and in the long run to undermine Christianity.

Mind you, few will see it that way, or plan it that way, some going so far as to actually believe they are doing Christianity a good turn, and serving God in the process. It matters not. Results are results. If you plant nothing but a stinking dead fish in the soil, you're not going to produce golden ears of corn. Socialism is socialism is socialism, even when the smiling socialists sell wings, halos, hymnals, and harps, and read "Christianity Today" in their leisure.

The ‘New' Strategy

The new strategy is essentially an old one (as most new strategies are), excavated and resurrected by the Monks of the Third Way (Compassionate Conservatism's 1990's forerunner). It goes something like this:

‘If you can't beat them, join them.' Better yet, tweak that; throw in for good measure, ‘If you can't beat them, cajole them, bribe them, promise them, pray with them, sing Hallelujah with them, and finally say unto them whatever they want to hear so long as they vote for you, and join hands with you in a prayer for sweet, compassionate Uncle Leviathan.

It's just socialism with a progressive, twist mind you. Nothing to fear.

And it's bound to work. In fact, it IS working.

The Sales Pitch

To purchase the national soul – even with something so delicious as a free lunch – requires considerable skill, and an A-1 sales pitch. Compassionate Conservatism has one. Here it is: ‘We like you. We trust you. You're the backbone of our country, the first line of our defense, the traditional source of welfare to our poor. And, you know, we say this from our heart of hearts, you did it better than the federal government ever did back in the old days, through volunteerism, through a faith-based approach, through genuine love. You know this is true. So do we.

‘Times have changed, however. Not as many people contribute to private charities as in the past. It's a shame. We know you're struggling, and could use a little help.

‘On the other hand, times have changed with the federal government as well. We've grown too large, too impersonal, too inflexible for this business of helping people. It's made many Americans cynical about government welfare programs. I can't blame them. We need to fix welfare. We need your help too.

‘There are just some things that you do, that we could never do, that personal touch, that local, close to the problem, common sense solution, and the ability to not only feed the stomach, but heal the soul.

‘Nevertheless, while we're not very good at that – it's not our job! – there are things we do, do better. Like ‘raise' money, provide organizational skills, and tap into a vast network or ‘advisors' and ‘experts' who have seen what has and has not worked.

‘Maybe now you're seeing what I'm seeing. It's becoming increasingly clear that we need each other, that it's time to put away old ideas of how things work, that it's for the government to stop thinking its job is to hinder the church and it's time for the church to stop thinking its job is to fear the government. We can work together and make for better times and a better America than we've ever seen before. We'll give you the tools you need to succeed with your mission. In turn, you'll provide the personal touch, ingenuity, and faith, to help us better fulfill our mission. Thus, by our meeting half way between private and public, between too little government and too much government we can prove to the world for the first time in history that government can be the friend of all, and the enemy of none.'

Somebody hand me an American flag and a Holy Bible; I'm feeling patriotic and religious all at the same time!

The Lure

The pitch is obviously a good one, ‘we've finally wised up, we need each other, so let's be partners with well defined roles. We'll do what we do best. You'll do what you do best. That ever unreachable Utopia is finally within our grasp.'

Yet, there's still something suspicious about this for many, something eerily dangerous about combining God and Mammon even when the message and its messenger is a smooth one.

We need a big prize to lure in Peter's big fish, and his myriad schools of little fish. The lure is quite familiar, as well. Tried and tested. Dyed in the wool – with a new twist: An assortment of bribes and bridges to the ‘needy,' though the needy are not your typical pack of peasants from the past, rather they are now churches, charities, private schools, state and city governments, corporations, and ordinary, run-of-the-mill, hard working – but tight on funds – groups and individuals, to include parents fed up with the quality of the schools they send their kids too. You know, the ‘working poor,' or the ‘worthy poor'; or the otherwise economically strapped through no fault of their own, poor – big time businesses included, who because they employ ‘the working poor,' can't be permitted to fail, lest we all fail.

And so what could be a better solution, a more laudable solution, a more American solution then a kind, gentle, and prosperous benefactor to unload an array of ‘free' goodies, with this intent only, to lend a ‘helping' hand to the backbone of America, to ‘help' them help themselves, and in turn, ‘help' their neighbor, and ‘help' America?

Sign me up! I'm standing at attention! The Stars and Stripes march again! The state has returned to its roots, with a fresh, smart, intelligent, progressive 21st Century approach! Hurray!

Remember, we are not talking about food stamps for the slothful, medical coverage for illegal aliens, soup kitchens or free housing for dead beats derelicts (though mind you, none of these programs are going away). No, just a Santa Claus-like list of ‘free' facilities, ‘free' text books, ‘free' teachers, ‘free' police officers, ‘free' training, and ‘free' schools for those who will make good use of them, in fact better use of them then the federal government ever could.

And regarding the schools, the benevolent benefactor, who will insure ‘no child is left behind,' permits parents to take their pick between charter, Christian, or secular private schools – after all, this newly enlightened benefactor believes in defending our right to ‘free' choice, and well, competitive markets even in public institutions.

A mixture of compassion and competitive markets is what it's all about. Balance, balance, finally some balance.

A Sure Sale

Let's admit it. This was a brilliant stroke. Offer to ‘save' those in the private sector still struggling upward against the disastrous effects of socialism, by inviting them to stop fighting socialism by partaking of the spoils themselves, of course, being ever careful not to state it quite so bluntly. Yet come on, think about it. What could be smarter? As the noose tightens around the neck of each newly dependent pastor, parent, professional, and private administrator, each will be equally wrapped up in gratitude that the rope was ‘free;' their captors, compassionate; and the program vaguely capitalistic.

The Moral Premises of Compassionate Conservatism – Just in Case

Still, even with such a good pitch, and such shiny lures, not every fish in the sea snaps at the first sight of the lure. Besides, men are not fish. Men think! Men have principles! And well, beyond that, getting back to the thinking idea, some men think harder than others. There is a class of this sort. We call them, or wait a minute, they call themselves ‘the intellectuals.' Money matters little to them. Influence and praise do. They love to be flattered, love to have their ears tickled, and love to have politicians pay them public homage.

So for them a confession of sensible premises, a creed, if you will, is presented at the alter as an intellectual offering. With words like these, they pray:

Private enterprise, private charity, and local decision making is best, and when complimented by civic virtue, collectively represent the foundation stone of America's success story. Amen.
Private citizens and private corporations in the interest of human progress ought to be free to pursue their economic, educational, and moral affairs with relatively few fetters placed upon them by government. Amen

Freedom, however, requires responsibility. Amen.

Therefore, all private citizens, corporations, and churches are bound to exercise their liberties without infringing upon the rights of others. Amen and Amen.

So far, so conservative, so sensible, and so Very Holy. Who could object? The intellectual conservative's ears are tickled. Homage to their god is paid. But here the homage ends.

Buyer Beware!

Conservative, Christian, Jew, Entrepreneur, Parent, State and Local Government beware! ‘Freedom,' says the Compassionate Conservative, ‘also requires another type of responsibility, thus:

All private citizens and corporations are not only bound by right-protecting negative laws, ‘the thou shalt nots,' but are likewise expected to perform certain good deeds, ‘the thou shalts' or positive laws, for in behalf of their neighbors, their community, and their nation.

Compassionate Conservatism calls this civic duty, or more hauntingly as is done at the U.N., in Russia, and in China, this is about ‘civil society.' And while the duty to do good and to be civil sounds somewhat like the Christian call to service, or early America's plea for civic virtue, it is neither, for there are two key differences:

1. Civic virtue and Christian religion persuade. Civil society and Compassionate Conservatism demand.

2. Civic virtue and Christianity look to the Sermon on the Mount. Civil society and Compassionate Conservatism looks to the harangues of Karl Marx.

Not surprisingly, Compassionate Conservatism, for all its trust in the individual and the local decision-maker, possesses an intrinsic distrust for human agency. It is not willing to let go and trust man to serve man. It feels compelled to intervene and make up for man's moral shortcomings. Liberty must be ‘coached,' charity must be subsidized. And virtue, trouble abounds there. For one virtue above all others must be instilled in us by them, ‘tolerance, tolerance, and more tolerance!'

Tolerance is the code word of all code words in this faith, and suffice it to say Compassionate Conservatism's, Third Way definition of tolerance is not the rational Biblical one which teaches us to "hate the sin but love the sinner," but the fanatical Marxist one which censures those who would dare to call sin, ‘sin.'

This new brand of tolerance legalizes debauchery in favor of social progress, and demonizes orthodox religion in favor of social solidarity.

Compassionate Conservatism, therefore, in substance is destined to be cruel and despotic. It preaches life, but denounces "litmus tests.' It preaches love of neighbor, but steals from the rich to give to the poor. It praises private industry, but sends them subsidies and ‘advisors.' It defends free markets, but erects elaborate regional regulatory schemes. It claims that we need more local government, but labors for the new world order. It cries for greater accountability, but outlaws negative campaign speech. And it clamors for Democracy, but demands that citizens ‘Shut up and vote!' as they now do in Canada.

As for the truly poor or handicapped, those who socialists have coddled and crippled for generations, they are stuck now as young single mothers, unprepared to face the world, simultaneously charged by Compassionate Conservatives to choose between the communist obligation to work, and the parens patria mandate to watch over their children.

Welfare will still be available, but short lived. Reliance on self and family will be encouraged, but monitored. If the mother fails, Third Way Compassionate ‘Boy's Towns' have been suggested, which will scoop up either the hungry or the neglected children left behind. The state, therefore, wins the prize it forever coveted. Such is compassionate reform. Mother works for the state, the child, by and by is owned by the state.

Claims, Claims, Claims

Third Way Compassionate Conservatism claims to deeply believe that re-enthroning private enterprise, private charity, local decision making, and civil society are noteworthy long term goals.

But there is a catch. In the short run Compassionate Conservatism believes that we must first work with things as they are, not as we wish them to be. Thus, their solution is for the federal Government to stimulate that which is private and that which is local back to life through the ‘compassion' of federal block grants, federal advisors, and federal government private partnerships. (1)

These grants, advisors, and partnerships are to be directed to everything private and everything local to help people help themselves, as already noted, with one whopper of a promise: They will ‘forever only help, and ‘forever only advise.'

Time to Think Clearly

You don't say. Are we honestly supposed to believe that purse strings are not purse strings? There's a cloud-cuckoo-land theory for you! But history, common sense, and the law counter with fact, logic, and precedent, that ‘purse strings have been, are now, and always will be purse strings!'

How could we forget that one of the very things Compassionate Conservatism sets its eye on – saving education – was subverted by the very same kinds of federal aid programs designed back in the 1960's for the ‘poorest of the poor, in the poorest of the poorest schools,' with the very same promise, to ‘not control, but only aid' state and local schools in their compassionate duty?

We should not forget. We should remember.

We should remember the 1963 Supreme Court decisions of Engel v. Vitale, and Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schemp got away with banning God, the Bible, virtue, and the religious side of U.S. history from the public classroom, because federal aid to those same schools gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court exercised that jurisdiction.

We should remember, the U.S. president at the time defended these same two decisions, using a line of rationale Compassionate Conservatism blindly ignores: "That which the government subsidizes, it has the right to control."

It has. It does. And it will.

What responsible parent would not do the same? Money parents pay out to dependent children is not given without terms, limits, and a checkup system in place. Parents ‘trust, but they verify.' All worthy stewards do. The state will do the same; you can count on it. Could any point of history, law, and common sense be clearer?

The Predictable Result

Alexander Hamilton warned 213 years ago: "Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid." (2)

It is common sense. For any of us to believe otherwise is to miss the mark with religion in public life, to vainly imagine in our hearts that the road to the New Jerusalem is paved in federal green. Let it be known from this moment forward, such a one who believes in this, has abandoned all logic, reason, historical sense and faith for a horde of emotion, irrationality, speculation, and superstition.

Doles undermine free agency, and are paid for via legal theft. Thus, Compassionate Conservatism – that name shifter of Third Way, Futurism, even progressive Marxist-Leninism roots – is not conservative and is not compassionate. It is but the latest in a series of schemes designed to derail the last remnants of true conservatism and true compassion. If we are then to stand by America and stand by our religions, whatever they may be, we ought to reject Compassionate Conservatism and its state appointed, state subsidized, and state dependent ministers with all the energy of our souls.

Footnotes

1. This idea of government private partnerships was one of the leading proposals by Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes in his "The Death of Lessee-Faire."

2. Madison, James. "The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787," Friday, June 22, 1787, Alexander Hamilton speaking.NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, and your editor of the Liberty Letters.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Message to President Bush and the U.S. Senate: Is what's good for the goose, good for the gander?

2006-05-30T10:32:00.000-07:00

Liberty Letters quote of the day:

"Bush lives in a House well protected by a fence and security guards (and he associates with rich people who live in gated communities). Yet for five years he has refused to protect the property and children of ordinary Arizona citizens from trespassers and criminals." - Phyllis Schlafly, President and Founder of Eagle Forum.

Read Phyllis' full remarks directly below, or click here.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Why is Bush So Stubborn, by Phyllis Schlafly

2006-05-30T10:17:00.000-07:00

As President Bush's poll numbers drop dramatically even among his base, the question most frequently asked by angry Republicans is, why, oh why, is Bush so stubbornly rejecting the advice of his supporters even though that advice is consistent with the thunderous message from public opinion surveys? The reliable Rasmussen survey, for example, reports that by a 63 percent to 19 percent margin, voters want legislation that controls the borders before trying to change the status of illegal aliens.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger encapsuled the typical reaction to Bush's televised speech: "I have not heard the president say that our objective is to secure the borders no matter what it takes. That's what I want to hear."

Bush's dogmatic statement that we can't stop aliens from illegally entering our country unless legislation is packaged "together" with a guest-worker program is a non sequitur, nonsense, and untrue. So what gives?

Grassroots Republicans are speculating about explanations for Bush's behavior: (a) Bush prides himself on being a man of his word and he gave his word to Vicente Fox that he would never stop the migration of Mexicans into the United States; (b) Bush made a faustian bargain with the big-money guys who raised more political money in 2000 than all other Republicans combined in order to nominate and elect him president; (c) Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a "new world order"; (d) Bush meant what he said, at Waco in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico.

Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boarding house for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of "willing workers" at foreign wage-levels, and wipe out what's left of the American middle class.

Bush lives in a House well protected by a fence and security guards (and he associates with rich people who live in gated communities). Yet for five years he has refused to protect the property and children of ordinary Arizona citizens from trespassers and criminals.

Much attention has been paid to Bush's proposal to legalize the illegals currently in the United States (estimated at 10 to 20 million). Despite his denial of the A word, friends and foes alike recognize this as amnesty.

However, amnesty for 10 to 20 million is almost a drop in the bucket compared to the mammoth legalization of immigrants hiding under the deceitful words "temporary" and "guest-worker." Those words are lies because the workers are not temporary and not guests.

We are indebted to the Heritage Foundation for its stunning report proving that the so-called 614-page "compromise" bill just passed by the Senate is a stealth open borders bill that would import into our country permanently and put on the path to citizenship at least 66 million people, with the actual number rising to at least twice that number when they bring in their relatives. Every category of legal immigration will be quadrupled or quintupled, and the racket called family chain migration will be dramatically expanded.

The so-called temporary workers in their fourth year will get the right to remain in the United States permanently if they have learned English OR are enrolled in an English class, and after five years will get the right to become a U.S. citizen who can vote in U.S. elections. At the same time, the guest worker's spouse and children, without any numeric limits, will get legal permanent residence and citizenship.

After the so-called temporaries and their spouses become citizens, they acquire the right to bring in their parents as permanent residents on the path to citizenship. Siblings and adult children and their families will be given preference in future admissions.

In the words of the author of the Heritage report, Robert Rector, this is "the most monumental bill ever considered" and its mindboggling costs would be the largest-ever expansion of taxpayer-paid social benefits. Adding these millions to Medicaid, and adding their parents to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, will become staggering entitlement costs.

The Senate bill would make 25 percent of our population foreign born within 20 years (most of them high school dropouts), and the United States as we know it would no longer exist. It is impossible in so short a time to assimilate a hundred million people whose native culture does not respect the Rule of Law, self-government, private property, or the sanctity of contracts, and where they are accustomed to an economy based on bribery and controlled by a small, rich ruling class that keeps most of the people in dire poverty.

Phyllis Schlafly is the founder and president of the Eagle Forum.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Hamilton Missed the Mark on the Dangers of Judicial Activism - by a Mile!

2006-05-26T08:07:00.000-07:00

It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority which has been upon many occasions reiterated is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments. - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, Number 81

Liberty Letters comment: Geez, talk about being way off the mark! Alexander Hamilton wasn't wrong often, but he was dead wrong on this one. The federal courts have in fact become dangerous usurpers of power. Again and again they overthrow the majority decisions of state legislatures and their people, as they recently did in Georgia when a federal judge declared null and void a state law passed by 76 percent of the people! This law upheld the age old standard of marriage between a man and a woman as the only legally recognized marriage. But the gay lobby, supposedly only wanting to keep the state out of their bedrooms (so they claimed), are now using the imperial power of the courts to jam their agenda down our throats, to the overthrow of the will of the majority and the laws of God.

As for the power of impeachment, it is as Jefferson predicted, a red herring, a power that exists on paper, but so rarely employed, and if employed, so rarely with success (because of party line votes) that it is in all practicality no power or check at all.

The solution lies in employing Congress' power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme and federal courts. This powerful check, used frequently in administrative law, needs to be used in earnest to restore power back to our states, counties, cities, and families.

Jefferson would have suggested periodic confidence votes on judges as well, rather than appointments for life. He may have been right.

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

The Federalist Papers, Number 6, Alexander Hamilton

2006-05-26T07:29:00.000-07:00

CONCERNING DANGERS FROM WAR BETWEEN THE STATES

THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations. I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind—those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation.

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties situated in the same neighborhood would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.

The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some which have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective bodies of society. Of this description are the love of power or the desire of pre-eminence and dominion—the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety. There are others which have a more circumscribed though an equally operative influence within their spheres. Such are the rivalships and competitions of commerce between commercial nations. And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether the favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification.

The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a prostitute,3 at the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his countrymen, attacked, vanquished, and destroyed the city of the Samnians. The same man, stimulated by private pique against the Megarensians,4 another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution with which he was threatened as an accomplice in a supposed theft of the statuary of Phidias,5 or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the purchase of popularity,6 or from a combination of all these causes, was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinguished in the Grecian annals by the name of the Peloponnesian war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth.

The ambitious cardinal, who was prime minister to Henry VIII, permitting his vanity to aspire to the triple crown,7 entertained hopes of succeeding in the acquisition of that splendid prize by the influence of the Emperor Charles V. To secure the favor and interest of this enterprising and powerful monarch, he precipitated England into a war with France, contrary to the plainest dictates of policy, and at the hazard of the safety and independence, as well of the kingdom over which he presided by his counsels as of Europe in general. For if there ever was a sovereign who bid fair to realize the project of universal monarchy, it was the Emperor Charles V, of whose intrigues Wolsey was at once the instrument and the dupe.

The influence which the bigotry of one female,8 the petulancies of another,9 and the cabals of a third,10 had in the contemporary policy, ferments, and pacifications of a considerable part of Europe, are topics that have been too often descanted upon not to be generally known.

To multiply examples of the agency of personal considerations in the production of great national events, either foreign or domestic, according to their direction, would be an unnecessary waste of time. Those who have but a superficial acquaintance with the sources from which they are to be drawn will themselves recollect a variety of instances; and those who have a tolerable knowledge of human nature will not stand in need of such lights to form their opinion either of the reality or extent of that agency. Perhaps, however, a reference, tending to illustrate the general principle, may with propriety be made to a case which has lately happened among ourselves. If Shays had not been a desperate debtor, it is much to be doubted whether Massachusetts would have been plunged into a civil war.

But notwithstanding the concurring testimony of experience, in this particular, there are still to be found visionary or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace between the States, though dismembered and alienated from each other. The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.

Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interests, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility, or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done any thing more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries.

Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a well-regulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.

Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage and made a conquest of the commonwealth.

Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius the Second found means to accomplish that formidable league,11 which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic.

The provinces of Holland, till they were overwhelmed in debts and taxes, took a leading and conspicuous part in the wars of Europe. They had furious contests with England for the dominion of the sea, and were among the most persevering and most implacable of the opponents of Louis XIV.

In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous instances, proceeded from the people.

There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars. The cries of the nation and the importunities of their representatives have, upon various occasions, dragged their monarchs into war, or continued them in it, contrary to their inclinations, and sometimes contrary to the real interests of the state. In that memorable struggle for superiority between the rival houses of Austria and Bourbon, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known that the antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the ambition, or rather the avarice, of a favorite leader,12 protracted the war beyond the limits marked out by sound policy, and for a considerable time in opposition to the views of the court.

The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in a great measure grown out of commercial considerations—the desire of supplanting and the fear of being supplanted, either in particular branches of traffic or in the general advantages of trade and navigation, and sometimes even the more culpable desire of sharing in the commerce of other nations without their consent.

The last war but two between Britain and Spain sprang from the attempts of the English merchants to prosecute an illicit trade with the Spanish main. These unjustifiable practices on their part produced severity on the part of the Spaniards towards the subjects of Great Britain which were not more justifiable, because they exceeded the bounds of a just retaliation and were chargeable with inhumanity and cruelty. Many of the English who were taken on the Spanish coast were sent to dig in the mines of Potosi; and by the usual progress of a spirit of resentment, the innocent were, after a while, confounded with the guilty in indiscriminate punishment. The complaints of the merchants kindled a violent flame throughout the nation, which soon after broke out in the House of Commons, and was communicated from that body to the ministry. Letters of reprisal were granted, and a war ensued, which in its consequences overthrew all the alliances that but twenty years before had been formed with sanguine expectations of the most beneficial fruits.

From this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose situations have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality between the members of the present confederacy, in a state of separation? Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections, the weaknesses, and the evils incident to society in every shape? Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?

Let the point of extreme depression to which our national dignity and credit have sunk, let the inconveniences felt everywhere from a lax and ill administration of government, let the revolt of a part of the State of North Carolina, the late menacing disturbances in Pennsylvania, and the actual insurrections and rebellions in Massachusetts, declare!

So far is the general sense of mankind from corresponding with the tenets of those who endeavor to lull asleep our apprehensions of discord and hostility between the States, in the event of disunion, that it has from long observation of the progress of society become a sort of axiom in politics that vicinity, or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies. An intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject to this effect: "NEIGHBORING NATIONS [says he] are naturally ENEMIES of each other, unless their common weakness forces them to league in a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, and their constitution prevents the differences that neighborhood occasions, extinguishing that secret jealousy which disposes all states to aggrandize themselves at the expense of their neighbors."13 This passage, at the same time, points out the EVIL and suggests the REMEDY.14

PUBLIUS [Hamilton]

Read Steve Farrell's latest at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com

Anonymous service, inspired parenting, and timely aid from unseen friends, melted and turned Rose's 'cold as steel heart.' Your heart will melt too when you read your copy of Steve's wonderful novel, "Dark Rose."

Constitutional forms do not guarantee liberty, the spirit of the people must match them - John Jay

2006-05-25T16:02:00.000-07:00

"But let it be remembered, that whatever marks of wisdom, experience, and patriotism there may be in your constitution, yet like the beautiful symmetry, the just proportions, and elegant forms of our first parents before our Maker breathed into them the breadth of life, it is yet to be animated, and till then may indeed excited admiration, but will be of no use. From the people it must receive its spirit, and by them be quickened. Let virtue, honor, the love of liberty and of science [he is likely referring to the sciences of government, law, and economics] be, and remain, the soul of this constitution, and it will be the source of great and extensive happiness to this and future generations." John Jay, September 1777.

Liberty Letters comment: Jay's main point was that the Constitution was only a piece of paper, without adaquate support from the people. If the people, in turn, are corrupt, uneducated, given to factions and passions, disunited by common traditions and religious morality, that Constitution will fail.

And so what of modern interventionists who impose democracy on such people - and for that matter, impose democratic forms that resemble more a socialist/secular leaning parliamentary system than our mixed Republic with its strict limitations on power, its vertical and horizontal separations of power, and it's inalienable rights (with religious freedom number one)? Freedom, like enlightenment and morality, must be earned, must originate from within, and must be chosen by an wise and moral people. Inasmuch as the Internationalists ignore this formula, they shall fail, and in failing, create many enemies for America and her free institutions that would otherwise look to our example when they were ready.

On the repugnancy of ex post facto laws, John Jay

2006-05-25T15:03:00.000-07:00

"To punish men for acts by laws made subsequent to the commission of such acts has, by all civilized nations, been deemed arbitrary and unjust." - John Jay, July 1776

Liberty Letters comment: Yet this is what we now witness today via administrative law, new laws which go back in time and punish men for acts that were legal when they were committed. We see it in environmental law, we see it in the prosecution of tobacco companies that sold a legal product (that everyone knew the risks of, including the state that mandated a warning label on each pack) and are now required to pay billions for their devilish sins, and etc.

But who are the devils here?

Ex post facto laws are forbidden by our constitution, and by common moral sense. Yet how many of us stand idly by as these arbitrary and unjust laws roll forth, penalizing, fining, imprisoning, villianizing, one person, and one group after another for engaging in legal activities? Shame on us for our negligence and loss of touch with basic constitutional and moral principles. It is under Communism that we read, "the ends justify the means." But in Christianity we are taught something better, that 'righteous ends must be achieved by righteous means.' And that accountability is tied into knowledge of the law, and a fair and just application of that law. Our Founders agreed. Our Constitution agreed. Two centuries of law in this country agreed. But what of today? What is the potential for legal, political, and moral evil is we fail to stand up? Where will it stop if not now? What legal legacy will we pass on to our children?

Alexander Hamilton's Dying Words of Christ

2006-05-25T14:16:00.000-07:00

[T]hus he acted during his last sad hours. To the exclusion of every other concern, religion now claims all his thoughts. Disburdened of his sorrows, and looking up to God, he exclaims: "Grace, rich grace!" "I have," said he, clasping his dying hands, and with faltering tongue, "I have a tender reliance on the mercy of God in Christ." In token of this reliance, and as an expression of his faith, he receives the holy sacrament; and having done this, his mind becomes tranquil and serene. Thus he remains, thoughtful indeed, but unruffled to the last, and meets death with an air of dignified composure and with an eye directed to the heavens.

This last act, more than any other, sheds glory on his character. Everything else death effaces. Religion alone abides with him on his death-bed. He dies a Christian. This is all which can be enrolled of him among the archives of eternity. This is all that can make his name great in heaven. Let not the sneering infidel persuade you that this last act of homage to the Savior resulted from an enfeebled state of mental faculties or from perturbation occasioned by the near approach of death. No; his opinions concerning the divine mission of Jesus Christ and the validity of the holy Scriptures had long been settled, and settled after laborious investigation and extensive and deep research. These opinions were not concealed. I knew them myself. Some of you, who hear me, knew them; and had his life been spared it was his determination to have published them to the world, together with the facts and reasons on which they were founded.

Eliphalet Nott on the Death of Hamilton, World's Famous Orations, Vol.8, p.182, Sermon delivered in Albany, July 9, 1804.

The Federalist Papers, Number 5, John Jay

2006-05-25T13:36:00.000-07:00

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED

QUEEN Anne, in her letter of the 1st July, 1706, to the Scotch Parliament, makes some observations on the importance of the Union then forming between England and Scotland, which merit our attention. I shall present the public with one or two extracts from it: "An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches, and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined in affection and free from all apprehensions of different interests, will be enabled to resist all its enemies." "We most earnestly recommend to you calmness and unanimity in this great and weighty affair, that the union may be brought to a happy conclusion, being the only effectual way to secure our present and future happiness, and disappoint the designs of our and your enemies, who will doubtless, on this occasion, use their utmost endeavors to prevent or delay this union."

It was remarked in the preceding paper that weakness and divisions at home would invite dangers from abroad; and that nothing would tend more to secure us from them than union, strength, and good government within ourselves. This subject is copious and cannot easily be exhausted.

The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them. Although it seems obvious to common sense that the people of such an island should be but one nation, yet we find that they were for ages divided into three, and that those three were almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another. Notwithstanding their true interest with respect to the continental nations was really the same, yet by the arts and policy and practices of those nations, their mutual jealousies were perpetually kept inflamed, and for a long series of years they were far more inconvenient and troublesome than they were useful and assisting to each other.

Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations, would not the same thing happen? Would not similar jealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being "joined in affection and free from all apprehension of different interests," envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits. Hence, like most other bordering nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them.

The most sanguine advocates for three or four confederacies cannot reasonably suppose that they would long remain exactly on an equal footing in point of strength, even if it was possible to form them so at first; but, admitting that to be practicable, yet what human contrivance can secure the continuance of such equality? Independent of those local circumstances which tend to beget and increase power in one part and to impede its progress in another, we must advert to the effects of that superior policy and good management which would probably distinguish the government of one above the rest, and by which their relative equality in strength and consideration would be destroyed. For it cannot be presumed that the same degree of sound policy, prudence, and foresight would uniformly be observed by each of these confederacies for a long succession of years.

Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen, and happen it would, that any one of these nations or confederacies should rise on the scale of political importance much above the degree of her neighbors, that moment would those neighbors behold her with envy and with fear. Both those passions would lead them to countenance, if not to promote, whatever might promise to diminish her importance; and would also restrain them from measures calculated to advance or even to secure her prosperity. Much time would not be necessary to enable her to discern these unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin, not only to lose confidence in her neighbors, but also to feel a disposition equally unfavorable to them. Distrust naturally creates distrust, and by nothing is good will and kind conduct more speedily changed than by invidious jealousies and uncandid imputations, whether expressed or implied.

The North is generally the region of strength, and many local circumstances render it probable that the most Northern of the proposed confederacies would, at a period not very distant, be unquestionably more formidable than any of the others. No sooner would this become evident than the Northern Hive would excite the same ideas and sensations in the more southern parts of America which it formerly did in the southern parts of Europe. Nor does it appear to be a rash conjecture that its young swarms might often be tempted to gather honey in the more blooming fields and milder air of their luxurious and more delicate neighbors.

They who well consider the history of similar divisions and confederacies will find abundant reason to apprehend that those in contemplation would in no other sense be neighbors than as they would be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would be a prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situations in which some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., formidable only to each other.

From these considerations it appears that those persons are greatly mistaken who suppose that alliances offensive and defensive might be formed between these confederacies, and would produce that combination and union of wills, of arms, and of resources, which would be necessary to put and keep them in a formidable state of defense against foreign enemies.

When did the independent states into which Britain and Spain were formerly divided combine in such alliance, or unite their forces against a foreign enemy? The proposed confederacies will be distinct nations. Each of them would have its commerce with foreigners to regulate by distinct treaties; and as their productions and commodities are different and proper for different markets, so would those treaties be essentially different. Different commercial concerns must create different interests, and of course different degrees of political attachment to and connection with different foreign nations. Hence it might and probably would happen that the foreign nation with whom the Southern confederacy might be at war would be the one with whom the Northern confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and friendship. An alliance so contrary to their immediate interest would not therefore be easy to form, nor, if formed, would it be observed and fulfilled with perfect good faith.

Nay, it is far more probable that in America, as in Europe, neighboring nations, acting under the impulse of opposite interests and unfriendly passions, would frequently be found taking different sides. Considering our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant nations, and therefore that each of them should be more desirous to guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves. And here let us not forget how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others make in the characters of allies, and what innovations did they under the same character introduce into the governments of those whom they pretended to protect.

Let candid men judge, then, whether the division of America into any given number of independent sovereignties would tend to secure us against the hostilities and improper interference of foreign nations.

PUBLIUS [Jay]

Senate Reveals Ugly Underside of the “Nanny State”, by Christopher G. Adamo

2006-05-25T07:42:00.000-07:00

As the United States Senate continues relentlessly towards the goal of amnesty for illegal aliens, its political movers and shakers are illuminating the despicable realities behind the phony “compassion” of liberalism. In a stunning act of treachery against the American people, the Senate has set the stage to plunder America’s social security system and give the spoils to illegal immigrants.

According to populist presidential “wannabe” John McCain (R.-AZ), illegals deserve access to the social security funds because they paid taxes. Yet nobody seems to know how much they paid, what percentage of their paychecks was withheld by the government, or how much more they have cost American society than they may have paid into the system.

The lingering myth that social programs exist for the “good of the people” has just been shredded by the proposed Senate action. Such programs were never devised to assist those in need, but rather for the political empowerment of the individuals dispensing the “benefits.”

Although liberals in Congress wailed that President Bush’s proposal to privatize a tiny portion of Social Security would bankrupt the system, they are now perfectly willing to give away an enormously larger portion of those funds to the millions of illegals working in the dark fringes of the U.S. economy.

In truth, liberal abhorrence for the privatization plan never had anything to do with a possible lack of funds. Furthermore, every privatization proposal offered by the White House ensured that sufficient funds would be available for those who opted to remain within the present system.

Rather, what the liberals could not stomach was the possibility that, by maintaining ownership of those funds, Americans might forestall congressional access to them. Had such been the case, no opportunity would exist by which the Senate could misuse the monies in this misbegotten attempt to curry favor and loyalty of the illegal population.

Worse yet, the far greater returns historically reaped from private investment would mean that average citizens might gain greater independence from the government trough. Hence they would realize that they had little further need for the benevolence from liberals.

The popular perception has been that Social Security constituted the “third rail” of politics, alluding to the idea that even barely brushing against it would be tantamount to committing political suicide. So, in comparison, the Senate action ought to equate to grabbing hold of that third rail, while standing knee-deep in water.

The fact that such Senate pandering might bankrupt the system sooner than is presently expected, is apparently a “yawner” to the left. This is strange, especially when considered in comparison to the hysterics with which every mouthpiece of the “nanny state” responded to the President’s plan to bring fiscal sanity to the program through partial privatization. Yet this situation does not represent some incomprehensible dichotomy.

In truth, the present system is, by design, a scheme to maintain a mentality of dependence on government among America’s seniors. Decimating the funds from within will not change this all-important status quo. And, by incorporating the twelve million illegals into the system, America’s dependent (and thus compliant) class can be enlarged to a breathtaking degree.

Meanwhile, those gullible seniors who, on cue, expressed such vehement outrage at the possibility of privatization, and who insisted that all future generations of Americans be consigned to the same dismal system into which they have been sold, are relatively quiet as this theft of the funds is being perpetrated. Far from being mindful of how Social Security’s Ponzi scheme actually works, they are content to be demagogued by the nightly news and other liberal institutions who presume to do their thinking for them.

Thus far, the liberal media has said little if anything of comparative alarm over the Senate plan. And, not surprisingly, other liberal institutions such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), who have historically engaged in a charade of support for the cause of senior citizens, are instead conducting their typical, clandestine advocacy of liberalism.

Here again, their rationale, while seeming totally contradictory on the surface, becomes entirely consistent when one considers where their real concerns and sympathies lie.

Hardly true to the notion of bettering the lot for seniors the AARP understands that its own fortunes rely on the size of its membership rolls. And any horde of new “dependents,” regardless of the degree to which they constitute a drain on Americans, will nonetheless only increase those rolls.

Thus it should surprise no one that, far from seeking to secure the nation’s borders and ensure America’s security and stability as a haven for seniors, AARP has in fact supported pro-illegal organizations such as MALDEF, the “Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund,” to which it has contributed thousands of dollars.

In this it shows itself to be virtually indistinguishable from every other liberal institution presumably dedicated to the plight of the downtrodden, but in reality only exploiting such people as a resource to further its acquisition of power.

Such outrageous betrayal of the American people by the “compassionate” members of the United States Senate (and virtually unopposed by the likes of the AARP) plainly illustrates the sinister mechanism fueling the massive growth of government in recent years. Furthermore, it could provide a backdrop against which President Bush might present his privatization plan with great success.

Unfortunately, having been absolutely on the wrong side of the illegal immigrant issue from almost his first day in office, the present situation provides the President with no such political leverage.

Thus Republicans once again cede the moral high ground, and in the process thoroughly undermine the conservative cause. And another golden opportunity to turn back the tide of liberalism is disgracefully squandered.

Liberty Letters Comment: Contact your US Senator and tell him you are outraged by their plan to turn over social security money to a class of lawbreakers. Contact the AARP and invite them to stick to defending seniors not liberal politics.

River in the Desert (...never ending, never dry ...), by Tom Graffagnino

2006-05-25T07:12:00.000-07:00

"The Lord answered Moses, 'Walk on ahead of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink.' So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel." (Exodus 17: 5,6)

******

God is Holy, and like an immovable rock before us, his holiness judges and condemns both sin and sinner. God's severe holiness and perfect justice commands and demands holiness in return. Because God is holy, his Commands are holy as well. They are immovable and non-negotiable..... like a rock (at Horeb/Sinai).

Unholiness cannot exist in the presence of an absolutely Holy God. It is not an option. If it were an option, God would not be holy.

From our (ie., sinful, unholy man's) perspective then, this presents an unsolvable dilemma. In effect, like the wandering Israelites who followed Moses, we stand, parched in a desert wilderness between 'a rock and a hard place', and sooner or later, each one of us must come to grips with the reality that confronts us: we are desperate for water and the Holy Rock of God's Law cannot save us. It was never intended to.

We are, in fact, dying of thirst in the desert.....condemned.

The Rock of God's Commandments are as immovable and unrelenting as they are inescapable. We may try to hide from God's holy commandments by removing them from our courthouses, but we cannot remove them from our hearts and minds.God's Commandments require holiness, and we cannot live up to them. We cannot satisfy God's requirement. The Law judges us and condemns us. And it does so justly.....

In Exodus 17, God tells Moses, "I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb" .

In the Hebrew, "Horeb" comes from a root word that means parched through drought, to make desolate, destroy, kill, to dry up, slay. To lay waste. [Strong's Concordance]

Without a miracle....without God somehow sovereignly intervening....sinful man is helpless and hopeless. The burning bright light of God's holiness penetrates, exposes and presses us against the immovable rock of his perfect Righteousness and Justice, his commands and his Law. Simply put, without a miracle, God's Holy Law would slay us.

Scripture, of course, teaches us that a miracle did occur. The Holy God of Justice, Truth and Righteousness who delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses at Horeb, mercifully became flesh. Holy God became a man...Jesus the Christ. And the Rock, indeed was struck. And so, now by God's Grace, provision for life (eternal life in the Presence of God) now flows like a river for everyone......

Because of Jesus, God's Holiness is satisfied. The ransom paid.

"He split the rocks in the desert
and gave them water as abundant
as the seas,
he brought streams out of a rocky
crag
and made water flow down like rivers."
(Psalm 78: 15,16)

"He opened the rock, and water
gushed out;
like a river it flowed in the desert."
(Psalm 105: 41)

*******

"Tho' my weary steps may falter,
And my soul athirst may be,
Gushing from the Rock before me,
Lo! a spring of joy I see..."*
--Fannie Crosby*
("All the Way My Savior Leads Me")

--------

"River in the Desert"
(...never ending, never dry....)

He's the Ark upon the water.
He's The Promise in the Flood,
Fallen man's Eternal Captain
Who at Calv'ry shed his blood.

He's the navigator's current....
He's the wind who fills the sail.
He's the One who calms the tempest,
And the One who stills the gale.

He's The Compass,
He's The North Star...
He's the Constant Truth man needs.
He's The Measure...
Buried Treasure.
And He lives now, yes indeed!

He's the calm beside still water,
He's our final Resting Place.
He's the wine The Father sent us
Overflowing....
Full of Grace.

He's The Lighthouse always shining
Through the fog of deepest night.
He's The Deep no man can fathom,
Yet The Source of true delight.

He's The Floodgate of God's Mercy
Who appeared in Galilee.
And in him there is no darkness,
From him.... Yes!...
The demons flee!

He's the One who loves the sinner,
And who cleanses prideful hearts.
He can purify the wretched
And provide a brand new start.

He's the Port
And He's the Harbor...
He's Safe Haven for the lost.
He's the Wellspring,
Living Water....
Heaven-sent...
Struck on The Cross.

He's The Drawbridge who was lowered...
He's The Net the Father cast;
He's God's Plan we see completed...
He's the First and He's the Last .

He's Great Wealth for poor in spirit,
Bread of Life true hunger craves.
He's God's Blessing for each mourning...**
God's Son risen from the grave!

He's The Rock who was split open
In this arid wilderness;
He's The Law who pours out Pardon
When we trust him...
And confess.

He's the Father's love Incarnate,
Flowing from his Throne on High...
He's The River in the desert....
Never-ending,
Never dry.

He's the dark cloud's silver lining...
He's the King of kings who reigns;
And He showers us with Mercy
As He takes away our stains.

He's the Blessed Hope we long for...
And He conquered death and sin.
He's The Door...
The Gate swung open!
All who will....
Please enter in!

-----------

"Jesus answered, 'Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.' " (John 4: 13,14)

******

*Fannie Crosby (1820-1915), blind since the age of six, wrote some eight thousand hymns to the glory of God.

She also wrote this:

"It seemed intended by the blessed providence of God that I should be blind all my life, and I thank him for the dispensation. If perfect earthly sight were offered me tomorrow I would not accept it. I might not have sung hymns to the praise of God if I had been distracted by the beautiful and interesting things about me."**

** Matthew 5: 1-10

Read more of Tom's poems and essays, and see his artwork at withoutexcusecreations.com

Republicanism and Christianity, Partners in America's Founding - Benjamin Rush

2006-05-24T11:09:00.000-07:00

In the crucible of Revolutionary America, Dr. Benjamin's Rush's political and religious faith became one. From the mid-1770s into the early nineteenth century, no one in North America was a more eloquent advocate for the Christian republican synthesis.

To John Adams he wrote in July 1798, "The precepts of the Gospel and the maxims of republics in many instance agree with each other."

Two years later he expressed the same to the Baptist minister Elhanan Winchester: "Republican forms of government are th ebest repositories of the Gospel."

To Thomas Jefferson in 1800, Rush was even more emphatic: "I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. The spirit is opposed, not only to the splendor, but even to the very forms of monarchy, and many of its precepts have for their objects republican liberty and equality as well as simplicity, integrity, and economy in government. It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions of the world."

In 1775 Rush had supplied Tom Paine with the title for his tract Common Sense and arranged for its publication. Never once did Rush doubt that his promotion of Paine's ... republicanism was a specifically Christian deed. As he wrote to Granville Sharp in England in 1783, the "language" of American independence "has for many years appeared to me to be the same as that of the heavenly host that announced the birth of the Saviour of mankind. It proclaims 'glory to God in the highest - peace on earth - good will to man.

Rush put matters as clearly as they could be put, but he was joined in such sentiments by a very wide range of influential leaders.

Liberty Letters Comment: On the other hand, this phenomena was largely limited to the Christianity that had evolved in an atmosphere of religious liberty in America. Anywhere else in the world, the status quo found Christianity promoting monarchy or inviting its members to steer clear of political involvement - or in other words, "let the devil do his work," for by default that's what happens when good men fall silent, whether by choice or force. Europe's church/state Christianity, for instance, which the Founder's despised, to a great degree, failed to promote morality, and exempted priest and magistrate from keeping the laws of God and man - as if they were gods themselves - and ironically forbade the reading of the Bible among its adherents. All of this is what happens when the state places limits on freedom of religion in any and all settings, public and private; and in all formats, whether speech, the press, or assemblies.

Source on Rush: Noll, Mark A. "America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln," Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 65

Fighting for the "Contract" and the Constitution: The Pledge Protection Act

2006-05-24T09:49:00.000-07:00
The Values Voters' Contract with Congress which we introduced in our last "Court Watch Briefing" is on the move. A top priority in the action package proposed by the Contract is Congressional passage of the Pledge Protection Act (or "PPA"). The PPA has been designated as H.R. 2389 and S. 1046. The House bill sponsor is Rep. Akin (MO), with a number of co-sponsors. The Senate bill sponsor is Sen. Kyl (AZ). Your action is needed, and the justifications for the bill are powerful.

Liberty Letters Comment: The above bill will limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Federal Courts as per the powers of Congress in the U.S. Constitution, so that they will have no power to rule on the pledge of allegiance. Excellent piece of legislation. This approach needs to be used on a large sweep of issues that traditionally belong to the states. Liberty Letters highly recommends that you read the full article and lend Dr. Armstrong and Eagle Forum your support on promoting this and similar pieces of legislation.

Fighting for the "Contract" and the Constitution: The Pledge Protection Act

Bush's Immigration Speech Is Not Credible, by Phyllis Schlafly

2006-05-24T07:09:00.000-07:00

If President Bush had given his speech calling for immigration reform five years ago, we would have believed him. Now, after five years of doing nothing to protect our borders, he is not credible.

The problems he eloquently complained about didn't just emerge this year. They all existed when he came into office and throughout five years when he did nothing to correct them.

These problems include the pitiful numbers of our Border Patrol, the millions of illegals smuggled into our country across the desert or in crowded 18-wheelers, the dangerous policy called catch-and-release of OTMs (Other than Mexicans) which he now piously labels "not acceptable," employers permitted to hire illegal aliens with forged documents, and unconscionable burdens imposed on American taxpayers to pay the illegal-alien costs of schools, hospitals, crime, and social benefits.

For five years, Bush and the Republican Party Establishment have treated U.S. citizens who demanded action with stony, indeed, arrogant disdain. So why should we believe Bush now when he suddenly pretends to discover what we have been telling him for five years?

The President's speech repeatedly demands a "comprehensive" immigration bill. He made clear that "comprehensive" includes legalization and the path to citizenship for the 12 million illegals now in this country, plus allowing employers to import an unlimited number of "willing foreign workers" whom he describes as "temporary."

The American people are smart enough to know that the former is amnesty, and the latter is a fiction. There is no such thing as "temporary" guest workers; history proves they never go home.

Bush seems to think that we will be comforted by 6,000 National Guardsmen sent to the southern border for one year -- not to guard the border, but merely to "assist" our Border Patrol. This has the ring of a political photo op.

We currently have 37,000 troops guarding the 151-mile border between North and South Korea, but we have fewer than 12,000 agents to monitor 2,000 miles of our southern border.

In 1986, Congress passed comprehensive immigration reform: amnesty for three million plus promises for border security and sanctions on employers who hired illegal aliens. If we couldn't trust President Reagan to see that the law was faithfully executed, we surely are not going to trust Bush's promises. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Bush bragged in his speech that "we have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally," but he didn't say how many of those six million were repeats. Maybe a truthful figure would be one million people deported six times, while the number of illegal aliens in the United States increased by five million since Bush became President.

The illegal alien who drove 100 miles an hour on Interstate 485 on the wrong side of the highway, killing a University of North Carolina coed last November, had been returned to Mexico 17 times. Did Bush count him 17 times in his six million figure?

Bush's choice of verbs shows that his promises of border barriers, technology and more agents are nothing but pie in the sky. All the good stuff that he proposed was prefaced by the words "we will"; he never said "we are" doing these things.

Bush said, "To secure the border effectively we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across." That's impossible. The Pew Hispanic Center reports that 46 percent of the population of Mexico would like to live in the United States, and 20 percent would come illegally if they could.

Bush said that "businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees." On the contrary, the technology is already in place for employers to verify the legality of Social Security numbers, but only a tiny percentage of employers voluntarily do this, and Bush didn't say anything about making this practice mandatory.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the only one in the Senate facing reality on this issue, says the 614-page so-called "compromise" Senate bill is "breath-takingly unsatisfactory." The new Heritage Foundation study reports that it would import 66 million new legal immigrants over the next 20 years.

All Senate bills would vastly increase our tax burden for entitlements. Half of all adult illegal aliens in the United States have less than a high school education, have high levels of out-of-wedlock births, and are heavy users of taxpayer-paid social benefits.

Bush wants to give U.S. jobs to foreigners so they can rise "from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own." He shows no compassion for the millions of American high school dropouts who need entry-level jobs so they can start building a life.

Bush was correct when he said this is the "time of decision." Republicans who want to be elected this November should pass the Sensenbrenner House border-security-only bill without any Bush plans to import more foreigners to take jobs from Americans.

Visit EagleForum.org.

Newsweek School Ratings: Fact or Fiction? - by William L. Bainbridge

2006-05-24T06:57:00.000-07:00
Newsweek's national list of "America's Best High Schools" unfortunately has become a one-stop shop for both fact and fiction in school ratings. Since Americans love ratings, the May 16th issue of the newsmagazine created wide interest. It was their 4th tabloid-like attempt to identify the top high schools across the states.

By publishing this list, Newsweek misleads the public and often ignores deserving high schools that are better than some of those on the list. . Newsweek ranked the "top" 1,200 public high schools in America by assigning a precise number. Their single-criterion ratings are based on a ratio devised by education writer Jay Mathews. Mathews' rating is based solely upon a simplistic formula: the number of Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) tests taken by all students divided by the number of graduating seniors.

This is a rating system that rewards quantity without measuring quality. Mathews admits in a recent column that the ratings are based on " ...a much-maligned ranking system I invented a decade ago." The lack of credible research and poor methodology is a disservice to readers and those who read second-hand accounts of such questionable ratings.

Some of the high schools on Newsweek's list ARE among the country's best. On the other hand, many do not meet acceptable definitions of even average high schools. Based upon generally accepted testing standards, many of the high schools on Newsweek's list have high dropout rates, low graduation rates and low ranking in student achievement.

Importantly, the ratings are often inconsistent with the results on SAT and ACT college entrance examinations, norm- referenced tests, criterion-referenced tests and analysis of dropout and graduation rates - - indicators generally accepted as elements of school effectiveness. Apparently the Newsweek theory is to demonstrate how committed a school is to motivating students to take higher level college level courses, regardless of what students achieve or fail to achieve.

The Newsweek formula:

1. Completely ignores performance on the AP and IB exams, relying only on the number of test takers rather than the number who successfully complete the exam to earn college credit for high school work. Certainly the actual results of those tests should be considered instead of just reporting the students who took the test.
2. Ignores many schools with high levels of student achievement.
3. Does not include important high school graduation rates.
4. Unfairly favors schools where parents or the school board are willing to pay fees for the AP test. Many schools have lower participation since students are required to pay their own testing fees.
5. Excludes all specialized high schools that require an entrance exam.

Regrettably, Newsweek has designed, published and promoted misleading information by offering a simple answer to the wrong question. Homebuyers and parents seeking an answer to the question of identifying high performing high schools would be wise not to depend upon Newsweek.

William L. Bainbridge is Distinguished Research Professor for the University of Dayton and President & Chief Executive Officer of SchoolMatch, a Columbus based educational auditing, research, and data organization. bainbridge@schoolmatch.com

Private Property: Right From God, Friend of Republics, by Steve Farrell

2006-05-24T06:46:00.000-07:00
To possess a memory is to be blessed with a priceless good. It is our link to the past, our guidepost to the present and our passport to the future. It is who we are, what we believe and how we fit in. It is that fixed vantage point in a world of confusion that gives us a degree of security, stability and moral direction.

One need not tell us what would happen if we were to sever the cord that connects a man, a family, or a nation to who he is and what he has learned. Such a clean-slated one might be transformed into a naive Pinocchio or a tra-la-la Pollyanna, whose lack of experience would lead him or her into the grasp of one of a million ‘Honest Johns' who offer frills and thrills that later come crashing down upon them in a carnival of deception and slavery.

Memory is critical, both to individuals and to nations.

Yet America has lost her memory, lost her fixed vantage point, lost her sense of the laws that protect liberty for all, not just liberty for the few. I speak of America's failure to recall the historical belief that liberty is only possible within the confines of fixed law.

Today, the law floats upon the winds of emotion and upon the arrows of moral appeals which miss the mark about religion, and which miss the mark, also, about our Founders' republic, the very republic which was established to protect religion and the inalienable rights religion proclaims as the common lot of mankind.

Keep reading:

Activist Judge Strikes Down Ban On Homosexual Marriage, Overruling 76% of Georgia Voters

2006-05-24T06:18:00.000-07:00
AFA ALERT: A liberal activist judge has struck down a constitutional amendment in Georgia which made homosexual marriage illegal! She felt that she knew better than the voters how they should vote and threw out their ballots.

The constitutional amendment, passed overwhelmingly by 76% of the voters in Georgia, is now null and void.

The homosexuals are determined to win this battle. They know they will never win if the people have an opportunity to vote. So they are turning to liberal activist judges to force their will on the people. They intend to force homosexual marriage down the throats of Americans. They feel our children must be indoctrinated beginning in kindergarten that homosexuality is normal behavior.

On June 6 the U.S. Senate will vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Because of a power grab by activist judges like the one in Georgia, the MPA is the only way that the sacred institution of marriage will remain between one man and one woman.

Please call your two U.S. Senators today and tell them to vote for the MPA. The liberal senators who want to legalize homosexual marriage will give you the political run-a-round. Don’t be fooled. Just remember this: If your senator does not vote for the MPA he or she is voting for homosexual marriage. Regardless of the political jargon you get from a liberal senator; that is the bottom line.

TAKE ACTION
Enter your zip code in the Call Now box and click "GO!" to locate the main district office number for your two U.S. Senators along with talking points for your calls. Tell them to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment. Print out their phone numbers and distribute in your church and Sunday school. Ask others to call!

The time to act is now. We must not let a handful of activist, liberal, pro-homosexual marriage judges force homosexual marriage on us and our children.

Please forward this to your friends and family.

Source: Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

Liberty Letters Comment: Yes, follow Don's advice, but on the other hand, have your Senator or Representative introduce legislation to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on this and other issues basic to the states (as per their constitutional powers). Beyond that, it's time for the people and the states to stand up, by doing the above, by calling for the impeachments of these judges, and if necessary, by calling upon our state governments to peacefully ignore legislation from the bench for which no constitutional power exists. Either we reverence the Constitution or we do not. Thomas Jefferson called such actions null and void on arrival. They ought to be. We don't believe in monarchy. Nor do we want to become Sodom. But let the states vote on taking such actions, for we do not believe in anarchy either. Finally, the 17th Amendment, which reversed the Constitution's policy of electing the U.S. Senate via the state legislatures, ought to be repealed. Making the Senate, once again, an instrument for protecting state rights, rather than another political body beholden to the mob, the media, and big corporate interests. Bottom line, there are constitutional options. Let's start taking them.

Amnesty Vote Expected in Senate this Week!

2006-05-23T20:34:00.000-07:00
Tell your Senators to vote NO on the Hagel-Martinez Amnesty!

This is the moment of truth for the United States Senate. Will they sell out American workers or will they secure our border and enforce our immigration laws? After weeks of debate, the Senate will likely vote this week on the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill (S. 2611).

So far, the Senate has completely ignored the will of the American people by:

Granting amnesty to up to 12 million illegal aliens currently in the United States

Granting amnesty for all employers who have employed illegal aliens

Calling for a massive low-skill guest worker program, importing up to 200,000 guest workers each year and putting them on the path to citizenship

Granting Social Security benefits to illegal aliens

Increasing legal immigration by up to 66 million new immigrants over the next twenty years

According to a Zogby poll released earlier this month, Americans overwhelmingly support the House approach — enforcement first — to immigration reform.

They oppose the Senate approach to immigration reform — increasing legal immigration and granting citizenship to illegal aliens. (Zogby poll, Center for Immigration Studies, May 3, 2006).

A vote on final passage of the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill will likely occur this week! Your voice is needed to send a clear message that the American people oppose any kind of guest-worker/amnesty bill!

You should also call your Representative and tell them to continue standing for the American people and oppose any guest-worker/amnesty bill the Senate sends them.

Take Action

Urge your Senator to vote NO on the Hagel-Martinez Amnesty bill!!!

Call Your Member of Congress Today!

Capitol Switchboard: (202)-224-3121

Senate E-mail addresses

Further Reading: Amnesty

SIGN OUR STOP THE AMNESTY PETITION
Amnesty Vote Expected in Senate this Week!

Source: EagleForum.org

Christianity, a proper aid to republican polity -- Samuel Miller

2006-05-23T19:48:00.000-07:00

In a fast-day sermon of May 1798, the rising young New York minister Samuel Miller described how proper religious observance ensured the health of republican polity: "The native tendency of this divine system is, to check the insolence of power; to restrain the encroachments of oppression; to give energy to the wiser prescriptions of government; to secure liberty with order."

Source: Knoll, Mark A., "America's God," p. 67.

Oregon student newspaper runs pictures of Jesus as a homosexual. It is time to speak out!

2006-05-23T19:35:00.000-07:00
The Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) has refused to apologize for an obscene anti-Christian assault in the campus newspaper Insurgent.

The March edition of the Insurgent ran one of the strongest attacks on Christianity I have seen. The paper ran graphics depicting Jesus as a homosexual. One was a depiction of a naked Jesus on the cross with an erection; the other, titled Resurrection, showed a naked Jesus kissing another naked man, both sporting erections.

(To see the graphics, click here. We warn you that they are extremely offensive. We have pixilated out the private parts.)

When asked for an apology by Students of Faith, ASUO refused to give one saying that "there are no grounds for demanding an apology from Insurgent." The ASUO went on to defend the publication saying that the newspaper contributes "to the cultural and physical development of the university community."

The Insurgent would never show a naked graphic of the Rev. Martin Luther King kissing another man, both sporting erections. But offending Christians was of no concern to the Insurgent or to University President Dave Frohmayer.

The ASUO Women's Center tolerates no defamation against gays and lesbians. Three years ago, ASUO demanded that the university radio station, KUGN, drop Michael Savage (a conservative talk show host). The university promptly discontinued the program. But depicting Jesus as a homosexual is perfectly OK.

Here is what Insurgent Student Editor Jessica Brown had to say about the graphics. "I have to say it is really fun to offend people. It is fun to break the rules. If it pi--es people off…good that's the point!!! It has here in this office. So read, get pi--ed and talk about it."

Incidentally, the University forces all students, including Christians, to pay student dues of $191.00 per term, part of which goes to support the Insurgent.

Take Action

Send an email letter to the Governor, University President and other Oregon officials protesting this anti-Christian bigotry.

Very important! Please forward this to your friends and family. It is important for them to become aware of the growing anti-Christian bias in our country. It is time for Christians to speak out saying that bigotry against Christians—or any faith—is unacceptable. Share this information with others in your church and Sunday school. .

Click Here to Email Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski Now!

If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please print this and share with others.

But if Not, Elder Dennis E. Simmons

2006-05-23T07:31:00.000-07:00

As a young man, I returned home from an eighth-grade basketball tournament dejected, disappointed, and confused. I blurted out to my mother, "I don't know why we lost—I had faith we'd win!"

I now realize that I did not then know what faith is.

Faith is not bravado, not just a wish, not just a hope. True faith is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ—confidence and trust in Jesus Christ that leads a person to follow Him.1

Centuries ago, Daniel and his young associates were suddenly thrust from security into the world—a world foreign and intimidating. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego refused to bow down and worship a golden image set up by the king, a furious Nebuchadnezzar told them that if they would not worship as commanded, they would immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. "And who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?"2

The three young men quickly and confidently responded, "If it be so [if you cast us into the furnace], our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand." That sounds like my eighth-grade kind of faith. But then they demonstrated that they fully understood what faith is. They continued, "But if not, . . . we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."3 That is a statement of true faith.

They knew that they could trust God—even if things didn't turn out the way they hoped.4 They knew that faith is more than mental assent, more than an acknowledgment that God lives. Faith is total trust in Him.

Faith is believing that although we do not understand all things, He does. Faith is knowing that although our power is limited, His is not. Faith in Jesus Christ consists of complete reliance on Him.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego knew they could always rely on Him because they knew His plan, and they knew that He does not change.5 They knew, as we know, that mortality is not an accident of nature. It is a brief segment of the great plan6 of our loving Father in Heaven to make it possible for us, His sons and daughters, to achieve the same blessings He enjoys, if we are willing.

Continue reading.

Liberty Letters Comment: We talk much of faith here at Liberty Letters. How deep is our faith? How much are we willing to sacrifice for the truth, or for the liberty that God gave us? Please take the time to read all of "But if Not," and let us search deep down inside and see if our faith, and our families' faith is that deep. But if not ... let us resolve to dig deeper, to strengthen, to inspire ourself and others, to turn more fully to God and Christ. The man or woman who does so will be forever changed and will forever move forward to a more engaged Christian, father, mother, neighbor, and citizen. That is my prayer for me and you.

Will God Hold Men Responsible for the Precious Gift of Freedom? - John Jay

2006-05-22T13:14:00.000-07:00

In December 1776, when America's fate hung precariously in the balance after Washington's defeat in New York, John Jay stepped forward, and reminded his fellow New Yorkers that God had a hand in the affairs of America, and as such, we have a responsibility to Him. Wrote he:

"If then, God hath given us freedom, are we responsible to Him for that, as well as other talents? If it be our birthright, let us not sell it for a mess of pottage, nor suffer it to be torn from us by the hand of violence [or any other means]. If the means of defense are in our power and we do not make use of them, what excuse shall we make to our children and our Creator? ... [D]ivine Providence will not permit this western world to be involved in the horrors of slavery ... [Therefore, those who fail to heed] the calls of liberty, virute and religion, [and are] forgetful of the mananimity of their ancestors and the happiness of their children, [can] be assured that they deserve to be slaves, and are entitled to nothing but anguish and tribulation. [While those who do their duty in this dark hour can] cheerfully refer your cause to the great and righteous Judge."

What then of today, in the year 2006? Will God hold us responsible for Liberty's decay, for our opposition or lack of opposition to that decay, for our promotion or our failure to promote, anew, those principles, and that virtuous conduct, that once made the United States of America a "light on the hill" republic?

Think hard on that subject. Your salvation, my salvation, our national salvation, and the happiness of our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, may hang in the balance.

Source for the John Jay quote: Address of the Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York to the Constituents, printed in New York, December 1776.

Rome and USA, Will History Repeat? - Ezra Taft Benson

2006-05-22T12:22:00.000-07:00

In 1787 Edward Gibbon completed his noble work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Here is the way he accounted for the fall.

1. The undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of human society.

2. Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.

3. The mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming every year more and more exciting and brutal.

4. The building of gigantic armaments when the real enemy was within the decadence of the people.

5. The decay of religion—faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and becoming impotent to warn and guide the people.

Is there a parallel for us in America today? Could the same reasons that destroyed Rome destroy America and possibly other countries of the free world?

Source: Ezra Taft Benson Read the full article.

The Light In Their Eyes, by James E. Faust

2006-05-22T11:58:00.000-07:00

I recently recalled a historic meeting in Jerusalem about 17 years ago. It was regarding the lease for the land on which the Brigham Young University's Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies was later built. Before this lease could be signed, President Ezra Taft Benson and Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, then president of Brigham Young University, agreed with the Israeli government on behalf of the Church and the university not to proselyte in Israel. You might wonder why we agreed not to proselyte. We were required to do so in order to get the building permit to build that magnificent building which stands in the historic city of Jerusalem. To our knowledge the Church and BYU have scrupulously and honorably kept that nonproselyting commitment. After the lease had been signed, one of our friends insightfully remarked, "Oh, we know that you are not going to proselyte, but what are you going to do about the light that is in their eyes?" He was referring to our students who were studying in Israel.

What was that light in their eyes which was so obvious to our friend? The Lord Himself gives the answer: "And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings."1 Where did that light come from? Again the Lord gives the answer: "I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world."2 The Lord is the true light, "and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit."3 This light shows in our countenances as well as in our eyes.

Paul Harvey, a famous news commentator, visited one of our Church school campuses some years ago. Later he observed: "Each . . . young face mirrored a sort of . . . sublime assurance. These days many young eyes are prematurely old from countless compromises with conscience. But [these young people] have that enviable headstart which derives from discipline, dedication, and consecration."4

Those who truly repent receive the Spirit of Christ and are baptized into this Church unto the remission of their sins. Hands are laid upon their heads, and through the priesthood of God they receive the Holy Ghost.5 It is "the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him."6 As Elder Parley P. Pratt characterized it, the gift of the Holy Ghost is, "as it were, . . . joy to the heart, [and] light to the eyes."7 The Holy Ghost is that Comforter promised by the Savior before He was crucified.8 The Holy Ghost gives worthy Saints both spiritual guidance and protection. It increases our knowledge and our understanding of "all things."9 This is of immense value at a time when spiritual blindness is increasing.

Secularism is expanding in much of the world today. Secularism is defined as "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations."10 Secularism does not accept many things as absolutes. Its principal objectives are pleasure and self-interest. Often those who embrace secularism have a different look about them. As Isaiah observed, "The show of their countenance doth witness against them."11

Yet with all the secularism in the world, many people hunger and yearn for the things of the Spirit and hearing the word of the Lord. As Amos prophesied: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

"And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it."12

Where can we hear the words of the Lord? We can hear them from our prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the other General Authorities. We can also hear them from our stake presidents and bishops. Missionaries can hear them from their mission presidents. We can read them in the scriptures. We can also hear the still, small voice which comes through the Holy Ghost. Hearing the words of the Lord lifts us out of spiritual blindness "into his marvellous light."13

What are we doing to keep the light shining in our own eyes and countenances? Much of that light comes from our discipline, dedication, and consecration14 to some important absolutes. The foremost of these absolutes is that there is a God who is the Father of our souls to whom we account for our actions. Second, that Jesus is the Christ, our Savior and Redeemer. Third, that the great plan of happiness requires obedience to God's commandments. Fourth, that the greatest gift of God is eternal life.15

Other blessings add further to the light in our eyes. They are the gifts of the Spirit that come from the Savior.16 Joy, happiness, fulfillment, and peace are the gifts of the Spirit that flow from the power of the Holy Ghost.

Read the full article.

Pope: Secularism Threatens Birth Rates

2006-05-22T11:47:00.000-07:00

Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday that low birth rates in Canada are the result of the "pervasive effects of secularism" and asked the country's bishops to counter the trend by preaching the truth of Christ.

Benedict, who has spoken out several times in favor of large families, blamed Canada's low birth rate on social ills and moral ambiguities that result from secular ideology.

"Like many countries ... Canada is today suffering from the pervasive effects of secularism," Benedict told visiting bishops from Canada. "One of the more dramatic symptoms of this mentality, clearly evident in your own region, is the plummeting birth rate."

Canada's birth rate in 2005 was 10.5 births for every 1,000 people, according to Statistics Canada.

"Canadians look to you to be men of hope, preaching and teaching with passion the splendor of the truth of Christ who dispels the darkness and illuminates the way to renew ecclesiastical and civic life," the pontiff told the bishops, speaking in English.
Separately, Benedict told the new Spanish ambassador to the Holy See that family based on marriage should not be "replaced or confused" by other institutions - an allusion to gay marriage, which is legal in Spain.

Benedict said he hoped his planned visit to Valencia, Spain, in July to attend a church gathering dedicated to families would give him "an opportunity to celebrate the beauty and fecundity of the family based on marriage, its very high calling and its essential social value."

The pope has been leading a church campaign in defense of traditional families.

He also reiterated church opposition to abortion and euthanasia.

"The church proclaims without reserve the primordial right to life, from conception to natural death, the right to birth, to create and live in a family, without it being substituted or confused by other forms or different institutions," Benedict said, speaking in Spanish.

Ambassador Francisco Vazquez Vazquez described the audience as "cordial and affectionate."

Ties between the Holy See and Spain have been strained since Spain's Socialists took office in 2004 with an agenda that has included legalizing gay marriage and making it easier for Spaniards to obtain divorce in the traditionally Roman Catholic country.

NewsMax.com: Pope: Secularism Threatens Birth Rates

Judge Strikes Down Okla. Gay Adoption Law

2006-05-20T17:10:00.000-07:00
A federal judge struck down a 2-year-old law that prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries.

U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron ruled Friday the measure violated due process rights under the U.S. Constitution because it attempted to break up families without considering the parents' fitness or the children's best interests.

Liberty Letters comment: One would think, and one always did in the history of man until just recently, that if the child's best interests were at heart, there never would be an adoption permitted by a gay couple. A class of couples that has shown that it has abandoned both nature and common moral sense, and by so doing, entered into a high risk group. High risk for child abuse, spousal abuse, alcoholism, mental disorders, rare diseases and suicide - and what of the children raised under such unnatural circumstances?

If this is not against the child's interest, what is?

But let's not stop here. If using the courts to perform the legislative function, overthrowing the will of the sovereign people isn't constitutional abuse, what is?

And what of the judge? If using his position to overthrow the existing moral and constitutional is not impeachable, what is?

We are at war with political and amoral revolutionaries. We have a duty to make our voices heard, rectify this wrong, and stand up for God, the family, these at risk children, and our constitution.

Read full story

The proper role of government

2006-05-19T13:36:00.000-07:00

On May 15, 1776, the Continental Congress published a resolution finding that it was necessary to form new governments "for the preservation of internal peace, virtue and good order, as well as for the defense of their lives, liberties, and properties."

Free Enterprise is Best, John Jay

2006-05-19T13:07:00.000-07:00

In 1775, when the conflict with Great Britain was heating up, and trade embargoes were in force - American Founder John Jay wasn't converted to the idea that all this state interference in the colonies' economies was for the best.

Said he: "We have more to expect from the enterprise, activity and industry of private adventurers than from the lukewarmness of assemblies. We want French woolens, Dutch worsteds, duck for tents, German steel, etc ... Shall we shut the door against private enterprise?"

Trade with neutrals ought to be free, and trade even our enemies ought to still go forward without state interference where it will benefit us. Exempt from the colonial embargo against the British, ought to be "any vessel bringing settlers, arms, ammunition, or warlike stores to and for the use of these colonies."

This, in truth, became the settled policy of America: fair trade with our friends, cautious trade with our enemies - and in every case, never a fixed policy with any one nation; but one subject to annual review; for nations, like men, alter their character over time, sometimes frequently.

Time To Address Domestic Violence Abuses, by Phyllis Schlafly

2006-05-19T10:23:00.000-07:00

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed by President Bush in January without any public debate, but evidence is now surfacing which Congress should have examined before the law was passed. VAWA is a nearly-billion-dollar-a-year extension of one of the major ways that Bill Clinton bought the support of the radical feminists.

Why Republicans passed this bill is a mystery. It's unlikely that the feminists who will spend all that money will ever vote Republican.

Passage of VAWA was a major priority of the American Bar Association (ABA) for whose members it is a cash cow. More than 300 courts have implemented specialized docket processes to address VAWA-type cases, more than a million women have obtained protection orders from the courts, and more than 660 new state laws pertaining to domestic violence have been passed, all of which produce profitable work for lawyers.

A recently issued ABA document called "Tool for Attorneys" provides lawyers with a list of suggestive questions to encourage their clients to make domestic-violence charges. Knowing that a woman can get a restraining order against the father of her children in an ex parte proceeding without any evidence, and that she will never be punished for lying, domestic-violence accusations have become a major tactic for securing sole child custody.

Voluminous documentation to dispel the feminist myths that created and have perpetuated VAWA are spelled out in seven reports just issued by an organization called RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), and in an 80-page report called "Family Violence in America" published by the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.

For example, it is a shocker to discover that acts don't have to be violent to be punished under the definition of domestic violence. Name-calling, put-downs, shouting, negative looks or gestures, ignoring opinions, or constant criticizing can all be legally labeled domestic violence.

The ABA report states flatly: "Domestic violence does not necessarily involve physical violence." The feminists' mantra is, "You don't have to be beaten to be abused."

VAWA advocates assert that domestic violence is a crime, yet family courts often adjudicate domestic violence as a civil (not a criminal) matter. This enables courts to deny the accused all Bill of Rights and due process protections which are granted to the most heinous of criminals.

Specifically, the accused is not innocent until proven guilty but is presumed guilty, and he doesn't have to be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt." Due process rights, such as trial by jury and the right of free counsel to poor defendants, are regularly denied, and false accusations are not covered by perjury law. VAWA provides funding for legal representation for accusers but not for defendants.

Those who are concerned about judicial activism, i.e., judges legislating from the bench, could observe judges doing this every day in domestic violence cases. Every time a judge issues a restraining order, the judge creates new crimes for which an individual can be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.

This criminalizing of ordinary private behavior and incarceration without due process follows classic police-state practices. Evidence is irrelevant, hearsay is admissible, defendants have no right to confront their accusers, and forced confessions are a common feature.

Some of these injustices result from overzealous law enforcement officials (sometimes running for office), and some from timid judges who grant restraining orders and deny due process to defendants for fear of being blamed for subsequent violence. Most of this, however, is the result of feminist activism and the taxpayers' money given them by Congress.

The ease and the speed with which women can get restraining orders without fear of punishment for lying indicates that the dynamic driving domestic-violence accusations is child custody rather than violence. Restraining orders don't prevent violence, but they do have the immediate effect of separating fathers from their children and imprisoning fathers for acts that are perfectly legal if done by anyone else (such as attending a public event at which his child is performing).

The restraining order issued against TV talk show host David Letterman, allegedly to protect a woman who claimed he was harassing her through his TV broadcasts, is a good example of how easy it is to get a court order based on false allegations. Another ridiculous restraining order was issued against celebutante Paris Hilton to protect a man she had badmouthed.

VAWA money is used by anti-male feminists to train judges, prosecutors and the police in the feminist myths that domestic violence is a contagious epidemic, and that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims. The feminists lobby state legislators to pass must-arrest and must-prosecute laws even when the police don't observe any crime and can't produce a witness to testify about an alleged crime.

Assault and battery are crimes in every state and should be prosecuted. But persons so accused should be entitled to their constitutional rights. After all, is this America?

Liberty Letters Comment: Please visit eagleforum.org, and find out how you can get involved. And please forward this article to others.

Judge Blocks School Graduation Prayers

2006-05-19T10:06:00.000-07:00
A federal judge on Friday blocked a southern Kentucky high school from including prayers in its graduation ceremony Friday evening.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit this week seeking a restraining order on behalf of an unidentified student at Russell County High School in Russell Springs, 90 miles south of Louisville.

And thus freedom of religion and speech takes another hit.

Lutgens argued that any prayer would be unconstitutional because it would endorse a specific religion and religious views. U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted the temporary restraining order Friday morning, prohibiting the school district from having even a student representative say a prayer during the ceremony.

Apparently the answer is that we will both endorse and enforce the faith of the atheist.

Judge Blocks School Graduation Prayers

Illegals granted Social Security

2006-05-19T09:51:00.000-07:00
The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.
"There was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me," said Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who offered the amendment yesterday to strip out those provisions of the immigration reform bill. "It just boggles the mind how people could be against this amendment."
The Ensign amendment was defeated on a 50-49 vote.

Read the full story

Liberty Letters Comment: Let your Senators know that America's laws must be upheld. Ask them to promote separate legislation that will prohibit these felons from collecting Social Security and other government cash, commodities, or services. Either we are a government of laws, or we are not.

Bush on Immigration: Repackaging the Trojan Horse, by Chris Adamo

2006-05-18T10:28:00.000-07:00

Among the tiny handful of Americans who still clung to the illusion that President Bush might want to truly address and correct the illegal immigration crisis, it only took the first moments of his May 15 speech to dispel all hope. Though conceding, seemingly for the first time, that the invasion from Mexico is indeed a problem, the President immediately fell back into the standard diatribe that has underscored Washington’s indifference to the American people on this matter.

Referring to the invaders as “decent people who work hard,” the President sought to dilute the fact that their presence here represents a blatant violation and contempt for the laws of this country. Furthermore, by virtually asserting that the real travesty is that the illegals are not sufficiently “protected,” he slapped the face of every law-abiding American.

Perhaps Mr. Bush needs to be reminded that it was the decent and hard working Americans that he once swore a solemn oath to protect, and whose well being he was elected to uphold.

Clearly, President Bush’s goal, as well as that of the consummate political pragmatists who hold sway within the GOP, is to offer yet another “fig leaf” of a guest worker program. Thus they seek to camouflage their ominous underlying intent, which is as it has always been, amnesty for those who violated the law to enter this country.

That is the reality of the plan that was presented in his May 15 speech. It is the plan that has been in the works among the “ruling class” from the beginning, and it is the plan they intend to foist upon the American people, regardless of any opposition.

But the President faces a dilemma. With his approval ratings at an all-time low (And despite any attempts by Karl Rove to claim otherwise, this is a direct result of his stance on immigration), Mr. Bush must take definitive action if he is to avert an electoral disaster this fall. Such a congressional shakeup could conceivably sweep Democrats into dominance in both houses of Congress.

He knows that the likely result would be the pursuit of impeachment proceedings by a vindictive Democrat-controlled legislative branch. So he is compelled to address the immigration issue. His response must appear to be decisive and effective. But ultimately it must not truly change the immigration landscape to any significant degree.

Presuming that the American people might fall for a public relations ploy reminiscent of his laudable response to 9-11, the President has offered a last-minute caricature of what should have been done years ago to correct the situation. He now proposes sending military troops to the border.

Unfortunately, several aspects of this move telegraph a message to the people, both north and south of the border, that he is still not serious about fixing the problem. Any military personnel sent to the region are to be utilized for logistical and supportive roles, and will have nothing to do with direct enforcement of the border.

Worse yet, before the first troop has even been deployed, the President has presented a timetable that calls for the deployment to end by next summer. It should be clear that even if the presence of troops were to have any tangible effect on the northward migration of illegals, such effects would only be temporary.

Furthermore, by the same logic that prohibits the announcement of any timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, the “one year” limit on troop placement at the border effectively neutralizes such action from the start. The invading multitudes would only need to bide their time for a few months (in truth, only until election day), after which any impediment from the military would disappear.

It is not hard to look past all of the posturing and see that nothing has changed. The plan being pursued by the pro-illegal crowd is as dastardly as it is simple. Immigrants who actually assimilate into American society will also move up the economic ladder, so a “fresh supply” of easily exploitable newcomers will perpetually be necessary.

Thus, the Pandora’s box of a “guest worker program” is the best means by which the floodgates will be propped open in perpetuity. And it is just too bad for future generations of Americans whose country will thus be overrun.

Those at the upper echelons of government would have liked for the invasion to remain relatively unnoticed, so that the President could have evaded this issue until after November. Unfortunately for him, uncooperative hordes of these “decent people” decided to flex their political muscle, and began marching through the streets demanding American capitulation.

In so doing, they brought the festering situation to the forefront, and now it is on the minds of the American people as never before. Still, the primary concern among high-ranking politicians is how to tap-dance away from it.

Anti-American Democrats stand to be the ultimate winners in this debacle, since the illegals will, in the long run, join their party ranks. Meanwhile, grassroots anger with the GOP will boost Democrat electoral fortunes. The public will not be fooled once again.

Thus the Democrats are willing accomplices, though understandably they have remained relatively quiet as they watch the GOP teetering on the verge of self-destruction.

Senate and House Republicans must immediately distance themselves from Mr. Bush’s speech, and specifically his entire “amnesty/guest worker” agenda, and should instead push hard for a real solution. Otherwise, he may have just sealed their doom.

Defining a Republic - John Adams

2006-05-16T14:26:00.000-07:00

The true and only real definition of a republic is a government in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws. - John Adams, 1787

Legal Groups Ready to Defend Graduation Prayer

2006-05-16T12:19:00.000-07:00
As graduates address parents and peers during commencement ceremonies, the issue of whether prayer or the mention God is allowed can be a confusing subject.

Graduation ceremonies are marked by speeches to inspire and motivate — but Christian students who take the stage are often reluctant to mention faith or God for fear of getting in trouble.

The widespread confusion about what is permissible has prompted Christian legal groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Counsel to develop resources for students and school officials.

Mat Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that prayer or religious messages are banned during public graduation ceremonies. He encourages school officials to remain neutral — neither commanding that prayer or religious messages be given, nor prohibiting voluntary student-led prayer or religious messages.

"The simplest and safest way for them to proceed in graduation prayer is not to censor religious viewpoints," he said. "Allow the private speaker to say what he or she wants to on matters relating to religion. If they are able to address the class regarding secular topics, then don't censor their speech when it talks about religious viewpoints or prayer."

Staver said censorship of a student's religious expression crosses the line.

"Instead of protecting the Constitution," he said, "they're literally violating the Constitution."

Such confusion is one reason Liberty Counsel, in partnership with Dr. Jerry Falwell, founder and chancellor of Liberty University, launched the "Friend or Foe" Graduation Prayer Campaign. It's designed to educate students, parents and school officials and ensure that prayer and religious viewpoints are not shut out.

Liberty Counsel offers a detailed legal explanation of just what is allowed in the Legal Memorandum on Graduation Prayers in Public Schools. Essentially, as long as the student speaker is selected by the student body — such as a valedictorian or class officer — and voluntarily chooses to offer a prayer or religious remarks, it is perfectly covered by the Constitution. But, Staver added, the graduate who has been asked to speak should give deference to the diverse audience.

"Obviously be respectful, but, at the same time, don't feel like when you enter the graduation podium you shed your constitutional rights to freedom of speech," he said. "The First Amendment is there with you. You have the right — that was part of the founding of this country — to freedom of expression, which includes religious expression. If you want to thank your friends, your colleagues, your teachers, your parents — you can obviously thank God, and certainly you can thank Jesus Christ."

The issue is not simply about a two-hour ceremony, he emphasized. If a graduate is asked to refrain from any mention of personal faith, it could signal an opportunity to make a difference.

"If you are censored, don't simply just assume that you're going to walk away and not address the issue," Staver said. "When you do not address it, you solidify the erroneous idea that religious viewpoints and Christian messages are unconstitutional, that they're dirty, that they're off limits, and that you have to carry your faith around in a brown paper bag.

"The issue is bigger than you. It's bigger than your speech. It goes toward the freedom of religious expression for all of us."

Source: Family.org - Read the full story.

Supreme Court Won't Consider Gay Parents' Rights

2006-05-16T12:10:00.000-07:00
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to block a gay woman from seeking parental rights to a child she had helped raise with her partner.

Justices could have used the case to clarify the rights of gays in child custody disputes stemming from nontraditional families.

They declined, without comment, to disturb a ruling of Washington state's highest court that said Sue Ellen Carvin could pursue ties to the girl as a "de facto parent." The girl is now 11.

The case had brought a contentious issue to a court that has shied away from gay rights disputes.

Lawyers for the girl's biological mother, Page Britain, told justices that the state court decision in this case and others around the country "pave the way for children to have an unlimited and ever-changing number of parents."

Carvin's attorneys had said the court has never agreed to hear a case involving parenting or visitation disputes arising from same-sex relationships, a recognition "that state courts can best provide the case by case attention these matters require."

Carvin and Britain had lived together for five years before they decided to become parents. Britain was artificially inseminated and gave birth in 1995 to the daughter, known as L.B. in court papers. The girl called Carvin "Mama" and Britain "Mommy."

The couple broke up in 2001 and the following year, when the girl was 7, Carvin was barred from seeing the girl. After Carvin went to court, Britain married the sperm donor. Justices were told that the father lives in Thailand.

The court's action does not end the case. Carvin must now prove that she is a "de facto parent" defined by the state court as someone who though not legally recognized, functions as a child's actual parent.

The case paints a nasty battle between the two women. Britain says she wanted to have the girl baptized in a Catholic church and that her former partner wanted to take L.B. to a Buddhist temple.

Carvin contends she was the active parent.

Liberty Letters Comment: But a small taste of the mess a legal endorsement of such mixed up values, and unnatural relationships can cause. It only gets worse from here.
FOXNews.com - Supreme Court Won't Consider Gay Parents' Rights

Economics Doesn't Turn Wrong Into Right, by Randy Stevenson

2006-05-15T15:39:00.000-07:00

We have long advocated for the enforcement of laws already on the books. We have already pointed out the lack of enforcement of the Packers & Stockyards Act. The failure to enforce immigration laws is just as bad. While we applaud the new plan to beef up our border security, it falls short of what is needed. The magnet that attracts illegals to this country is jobs. For over twenty years it has been against the law to hire illegals. It is punishable with a heavy fine. But enforcement has never been a priority.

On the recent “Day Without Immigrants” several packing plants closed their doors. Meatpackers are one of the most abundant providers of jobs for immigrants. They and other industries like them are the ones behind the idea that “our economy cannot function without immigrants,” as President Bush stated in his last State of the Union address. Such a view of these people as merely a cheap source of labor is dehumanizing. In the early 1800’s people of the South said that the South could not function without slavery. That very argument was made by members of the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time Congress had the good sense to stop the importation of more slaves, but failed to prevent its continued existence.

Teddy Roosevelt wisely said, "Never under any condition should this nation look at an immigrant as primarily a labor unit." He continued, "We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than 50 years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being.” Sadly, we are doing just exactly that. The debate over illegal immigration is focused on economic rationalizations.

Unfortunately, the federal government has a dismal record of enforcing immigration laws. We cannot trust it to properly enforce a new “guest worker” program. Such trust needs to be earned. Until the federal government cracks down on those corporations that flaunt the law by knowingly hiring illegals, there should be no “guest worker” program of any kind.

Instead, we ought to consider how great a solution we could create by instituting a peaceful “invasion.” By sending the 10 to 20 million illegals home to Mexico and asking them to vote to reform the oppressive and corrupt Mexican government, those looking for opportunities and demanding rights in our country could instead find those treasures of liberty in their own native land.

Please visit thestevensonreport.com.

Click here for Randy's Bio, and more on the Stevenson Report.

Establishment of American Republic, A Prelude to Gospel Dispensation

2006-05-15T13:09:00.000-07:00

Like several other key American Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Rush saw the experiment in liberty that was occurring in the United States, a prelude to the pouring out from Heaven of a new glorious gospel dispensation. He observed:

"Republican forms of government are the best repositories of the Gospel. I therefore suppose they are intended as preludes to a glorious manifestation of its power and influence upon the hearts of men. The language of these free and equal governments seems to be like that of John the Baptist of old, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord - make his path straights."

Benjamin Rush, letter to Elhanan Winchester, 12 November 1791.

Creation Ex Nihilo Part 3, Scientific Proof

2006-05-11T14:48:00.000-07:00
The scientific arguments in favor of creation ex nihilo are recent arguments on a historical basis. The ancient Greek philosophers and scientists, like Plato and Aristotle, believed that the universe and all the matter in the universe were eternal. They also believed that God was co-existent with matter and he created from that co-existent, eternal mass. As Copan explains, Aristotle saw, “Like God himself, matter, of which all physical substances are composed, is eternal and uncreated and underlies the eternal process of generation and corruption undergone by things in the sublunary realm.”

Scientists in the nineteenth century used Newtonian physics to replace Aristolean physics, but came up with the same result. The universe and all of its matter was eternal. This seemed to be undergirded by the scientific understanding of the day.

Hermann von Helmholtz, the brilliant philosopher and physicist in the middle of the century argued that all phenomena can be reduced to a simple principle which can be detected through rigorous research. He believed that due to the nature of thermodynamics, the universe was eternal. As he stated, “endeavors to ascertain the unknown causes of processes from their visible effects; it seeks to comprehend them according to the laws of causality. Theoretical natural science must, therefore, if it is not to rest content with a partial view of the nature of things, take a position in harmony with the present conception of the nature of simple forces and the consequences of this conception. Its task will be completed when the reduction of phenomena to simple forces is completed, and when it can at the same time be proved that the reduction given is the only one possible which the phenomena will permit.”

This philosophical precondition gave him a passion to prove that the laws behind thermodynamics were purely natural and could provide scientifically testable conclusions. He helped to prove that if matter seemed to disappear to the naked eye, it just changed form into heat energy. Since matter could neither be created nor destroyed and there was a place that matter went when it seemed to disappear (heat energy), his observations supported the conclusion that matter and the Universe was eternal.

The underpinnings of an eternal Universe started to come apart in 1917. This is when Einstein first came forward with his theory of general relativity. The implication of his theory was that the Universe had a beginning, much to the chagrin of Einstein himself. More importantly, it was a testable theory that provided predictions.

Though Einstein had started with the precondition of expecting to find that his models of relativity would support a steady state universe, the observational data directly contradicted an eternal Universe. In the 1920’s various cosmological models suggested that if there were no matter in the Universe, then it could remain static, but if matter were introduced, then it would start expanding due to the cosmological constant derived by Einstein. Friedmann and LeMaitre considered the data and argued that the Universe was expanding from a state of very high density. What was lacking was empirical data to support the theory that the Universe was expanding.

In 1926, Vesto Slipher, a planetary physicist who studied the spectral lines of Jupiter and Saturn, noticed that the optical spectral light from distant galaxies was shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This suggested that the matter in the Universe was expanding. Edwin Hubble confirmed this in 1929 through direct observation. He showed that the further galaxies were away from us, the faster they were receding. He also noted that the Universe is expanding isotropically. Once Hubble’s data was confirmed, Einstein relented on his quest to prove that the universe existed in a steady state.

Though an expanding universe starting from an incredibly dense point in the relatively recent past (Hubble first speculated that it might be 2 billion years) seemed to be confirmed by the data, for philosophical reasons, cosmologists rejected the theory. Sir Arthur Eddington stated, “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of a present order of Nature is repugnant to me.” Furthermore, Sir Frederick Hoyle, teamed up with a number of physicists to build a competing model known as the steady state model. In a famous interview with Nature Magazine, he pejoratively referred to a universe with a beginning as a “big bang” was “repugnant”.

Science continued to march on and provide observational evidence that seemed to support the “big bang” model. In 1965, when Penzias and Arno confirmed the existence of background radiation, confirming a prediction of the Big Bang, even proponents of the steady state model saw the writing on the wall. William Lane Craig points out that, “Thus Hoyle, ‘after ten years or more of attempting to “tough it out”’, admits that the classic steady state model ought to be abandoned because of its inability to account for the microwave background.” Craig points out that the reason Hoyle was trying to “tough it out” was because his pursuit of an alternative to the “big bang” was the “desire to avoid theism…that largely accounts for Hoyle’s adherence to steady state models.”

Further support for the big bang came from Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking in 1970. Through their singularity theorem’s, Penrose and Hawking helped show how space and time have a beginning point and “an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even for in non-homogenous and non-isotropic universes,” according to Copan and Craig. This was important because it countered the growing replacement for the steady state model by the oscillating universe models. This also identified that a singularity could be empirically testable for the beginning point of our universe.

The concept of a singularity is so important due to its support of “creation ex nihilo”. We see this in the comments of John Gribbins, “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical-perhaps even theological-what was there before the bang?” Like Einstein, who initially struggled with the implications of his theory and considered the cosmological constant as a way to confirm an eternal universe; Hawking looked for a way to avoid the singularity.

Hawking and other physicists that have been working on theories that avoid the singularity have appealed to “imaginary time”. As Copan points out, “Introducing imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstien’s equation has the peculiar effect of making the time dimension indistinguishable from space. Essentially, before Planck time, there is no space time at all, but just a smooth edge existing in a Euclidean four dimensional space where it would exist timelessly. By eliminating the singularity, you eliminate the theological problems associated with the singularity and you eliminate creation ex nihilo.

There are many problems with this postulation though. Hawking admits, “When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.” As Copan and Craig point out, “Hawking has more recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking Model non-realistically.” Hawking himself stated, “I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality.” Interestingly, all of the quantum gravity models that counter creation ex nihilo depend on the use of imaginary numbers. If you consider the truth of A theory of Time, we see that creation ex nihilo seems to be vigorously supported by the empirical as well as philosophical evidence.
The fact that all quantum gravity models depend on using imaginary time has significant implications with the latest challenge to a beginning of space and time. The multiple universe theory posits that there are an infinite number of universes. This helps explain why the universe we live in seems to support the Anthropic Principle.

The Anthropic Principle, first coined by Brandon Carter in 1973, states that the hyper fine-tuned physics of the universe seems to support the existence of man. The Multiple Universe theory has explanatory power to show the reason why this universe is so incredibly fine-tuned. The theory states that there are an infinite number of universes out there and we just happen to live in the one that is hyper fine-tuned.

As discussed previously, most physicists like Hawking view this way of thinking about quantum mechanics as a mathematical exercise to help them understand the universe. They do not believe that there really are other universes; they just want their theories to be positivistic. Though multiple universes may seem to be an interesting alternative, they seem to harken back to the philosophical reasons scientists pursued both the steady state and oscillating theories-to avoid the singularity.

In the Skeptical Inquirer, Martin Gardner stated, “Surely the conjecture that there is just one universe and its Creator is infinitely simpler and easier to believe than that there are countless billions upon billions of worlds [his term for universes], constantly increasing in number and created by nobody. I can only marvel at the low state to which today's philosophy of science has fallen.” The multiple universe theory seems to be a non-empirical, metaphysical response to explain the empirical data supporting the singularity.

In this paper, we have considered arguments for and against creation ex nihilo from a biblical, philosophical and scientific perspective. The biblical evidence seems to rest upon whether or not Genesis 1:1 should be read as a construct or an absolute statement. The philosophical and scientific evidence for creation ex nihilo seems to depend upon using a realist’s view of reality and the use of A theory of time. The evidence against this position seems to depend upon an anti-realists view of reality and the use of B theory of time. The paper seems to clearly support creation ex nihilo.