Christian Covenanter

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:45 AM | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:44 AM | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:03 PM | Permalink | Comments

Yes, the political class and U.S. State Department really is almost as stupid as the parody portrays.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:47 AM | Permalink | Comments

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."
—Winston Churchill

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Comments

Multiculturalism is the ideology of Western suicide. London, England is fast becoming an Islamic Caliphite. This will translate to more terrorism and the dimunition of the English nation. These ungrateful interlopers despise the Western society that naively embraces them.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments

Allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of a free society, and also the most productive and efficient supplier of human needs.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:18 PM | Permalink | Comments

Ughh... I didn't know Jefferson had a lisp, but he endorses Ron Paul!

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Comments

February 15, 2008

Honorable Congressman Virgil H. Goode Jr.,

Sir, it has come to my attention that Senator Obama is proposing a massive foreign aid subsidy program, a veritable Great Society run riot on an international level. Supposedly, he wants to pledge $845 billion over several years, (or 0.7% of gross national product per annum.) I am disturbed by such measure, particularly given the size of budget deficits at home, the deterioration of the U.S. Dollar, and what appears to be the beginning of exorbitant inflation. Years of fiscal mismanagement by the Congress seem to only be met with more reckless mismanagement. I find it disturbing that amidst what appears to be the beginning of American economic decline that our political leadership sees fit to waste our tax dollars. Our infrastructure at home is falling apart, as evident by that bridge collapse in Minnesota. There are better uses of tax dollars than foreign aid.

I realize there are voices of sanity and statesmanship in the Congress like yourself, and other members of the Liberty Committee like Ron Paul. I hope you will speak to this matter, and oppose it.

One of your predecessors Dan Daniel was compelled to challenge U.S. government attempts to aid regimes that practiced socialism, whether the Marxist variety or not, "because it encouraged them to remain victims of their own economic systems." Such logic is lost to today's politicians, and foreign aid has crippled the Third World, by propping up corrupt socialist kleptocracies. "There's no escaping the truth," proclaimed Daniel, "that the $60,000,000,000 in economic aid which we have given away since World War II has seriously jeopardized our economy." I fundamentally believe there is truth to that proverb God helps those that helps themselves. I think that private charities like Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing among many others, are more efficient and honestly administered than American-subsidized programs under the auspices of the United Nations. I am against foreign aid too, because of its perceived unconstitutionality. Where's the authority in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?

A July 4, 2005 interview with a Kenyan economist in the German newspaper Spiegel offered some hard-hitting truth that the world needs to hear about Africa. Socialism in Africa, reinforced by naive Western powers and the United Nations, is at the root of Africa's problems. It held true in the 1970s. And it holds true in the twenty-first century. Intervention via foreign aid inculcates weakness in their government, saps market vitality, and props up despots and dictators. In 2005, the Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati says that foreign aid to Africa does more harm than good, declaring, "For God's sake, please just stop." He elaborated, "Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor." Spiegel then queried, "Do you have an explanation for this paradox?" Shikwati retorted, "Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid." Spiegel then queried, "Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them." Shikwati declared, "But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help... It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help... before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle."

I have become cognizant of the reality that many corrupt special interests in the banking industry, and international bankers have a vested interest in seeing large sums of loans directed at corrupt Third World regimes, and they play the familiar game of lobbying the Congress to bail them out under the auspices of debt relief. This encourages a vicious cycle of fiscal irresponsibility in the United States, and subsidizes corruption, poverty and failure abroad.

Best Regards,
Ryan Setliff

Click image below to download the response from Rep. Goode on Feb. 15, 2008.

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments

Forty-seven years later, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 speech about the military-industrial complex still carries weight, and it serves a reminder that its influence has the potential to be nefarious, and conducive to war, not peace. One does not have to countenance conspiracy theories like those advocated by left-winger Oliver Stone, to understand this reality. Public choice economists like Nobel Laureate James Buchanan, on the Right, have pointed out the marked tendency of an exuberant public sector to fabricate demand for public goods—that ultimately benefit the producers of those goods, and yet they do not serve any vital public interest. The aggrandizement of this military-industrial complex and the policies they advocate are seldom within the rubric of a vital public interest at all. Demand for the military-industrial complex's public goods (i.e., armaments, logistics, service, and maintenance contracts) often emanates from the pursuit of war. So is peace really the end which the military-industrial complex serves when they profit so much from war? After the Cold War, the military-industrial complex within the United States needed to find new rationalizations for interventionist foreign policy. Peace paid no significant profits and no dividends. The Iraq War on the other hand has cost over $1 trillion thus far, with no exit strategy in sight. Moreover, we have succumbed to the perils of blowback by our government's covert actions in years past.

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs — balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage — balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So — in this my last good night to you as your President — I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I — my fellow citizens — need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments

Can any serious student of history doubt after Hamilton wrote his Report on Public Credit, and the United States Congress established a charter for the First Bank of the United States, that we set ourselves on a perilous course, whereby public debt and taxation could subsume the national economy, and continually aggrandize the federal government at the expense of the states and the people? As John Taylor's Inquiry lamented, all the Hamiltonian system did was contrive a system whereby the people pay needless interest on the circulating medium to a private banking cartel, and to perpetuate the fraud the federal government eventually passed legal tender laws.

Jefferson in a moment of reflection declared in 1798:

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.
—Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:56 PM | Permalink | Comments

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
—Colossians 2:8

Year end and year out, beatniks and assorted miscreants boast of the philosophical insight offered by that crass atheistic Friedrich Nietzsche, the author of sordid works as The Anti-Christ. Nietzsche once opined:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzche proposed that man create his own morality: and that he embrace the tabula rasa (blank slate). Nietzsche believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. Relinquishing the belief in God opens the way for human creative abilities to fully develop he posited; it also opens the way for human depravity to become unbridled in the absence of moral constraints such as the consciousness of eternal and just God and a final judgment. The Christian God, he wrote, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas.

It should probably not be a surprised that the later-day fascists—particularly one Adolf Hitler praised the philosophy of the insane syphilis-carrier Nietzsche. In his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

There was some ground for this appropriation of Nietzsche as one of the originators of the Nazi Weltanschauung. Had not the philosopher thundered against democracy and parliaments, preached the will to power, praised war and proclaimed the coming of the master race and the superman--and in the most telling aphorisms? (100).

Ideas have consequences as Richard Weaver posited. With Nietzsche's amorality, Hitler and the National Socialist rationalized some of the most barbaric acts of inhumanity in history, rivaled only by the communists.

The simple fact of the matter is that Nietzsche is dead; and God is alive!

1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. (Psalm 2:1-5)

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments

The French author of the famous book Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville presciently foresaw the undercurrents of a political phenomenon that lamentably came to fruition in twentieth- century America reaching its climax following two world wars, FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. That phenomenon was described as democratic despotism.

Alexis de Tocqueville opined:

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience. I do not deny, however, that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all the forms that democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst.

Tocqueville elucidates further on the democratic despotism phenomenon:

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

What is most lamentable about democratic despotism, isn't foremost the budgetary bloat of the colossal public sector, or the taxation burden, but what it does to us as human beings. It drains the vitality out of men, and alienates their affections for "the little platoons" (i.e., family, community, voluntary civil assocations) as Burke dubbed them. Political apathy becomes the norm as the government is perceived as aloof, unresponsive, remote and even malevolent in its nature. Democratic despotism was an unfortunate outgrowth of egalitarian leveling run riot. Tocqueville conceived of liberty like an aristocratic stateman. Liberty and equality have ultimately proven themselves antithetical, precisely because we hapless moderns will not qualify equality and distinguish between the undesirable forms of equality. Tocqueville concluded: "I think that in the dawning centuries of democracy, individual independence and local liberties will always be the products of art. Centralized government will be the natural thing."

In the reductionist conception of ideal liberty heralded by the sages of our times, we are errantly taught to conceptualize freedom in terms of access to the ballot, and the ability to democratically select our leaders. Regrettably, we ignore the moral hazards posed by democratizing so much of civil society. Contemporaneously, civil society cannot ignore the pervasive power of the state with its calculated programmes of public education, wealth redistribution, and an endless array of entitlement programs. The modern managerial regime is increasingly embracing the pagan ancien régime conception of the polis (πόλεις), where the state and society are subsumed into one another. This revival of pagan monism has the roots of twentieth-century totalitarianism, and if unchecked it can spell dismal results for a body politic, culture, nation and society.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:34 PM | Permalink | Comments

Much controversy as emanated from the Confederates putting George Washington on the seal of the Confederacy. As historian Reid Mitchell notes, "The Civil War proved curiously filled with echoes of the American Revolution. The patriotic past and the Biblical past wer the two great historic memories by which Americans measured their present.... Southerners did not repudiate the Revolution in 1861; they did not renounce the legacy of 1776. Confederates saw themselves as true Americans. The sectional conflict and the Civil War were in some ways a conflict over the meaning of shared past." Northerners have disparaged the south's use of their noble Virginian George Washington, the First President of the United States, being placed on the seal of the Confederacy. To settle curiosity, which side were the Washington family on in the Civil War. "During a scout near Cheat Mountain, Virginia, in the fall of 1861," notes Mitchell, "a squad of federal calvary approached a group of mounted men. The men turn and fled. The Union soldiers fired and one man fell off his horse, struck by four balls. The Union soldiers rushed toward him—in accordance with his 'brutish instincts'—pulled his revolver but was too weak too fire. With his last words, he begged for water. The Union soldiers tended him but he soon died. Examining his corpse, the soldiers learned he was Lt. Col. John A. Washington, 'the great-nephew of George Washington,' shot in the back by Union soldiers." A little ironic that a Washington was shot in the back? Sort of like how the idea of being governed by consent and taxation by consent were shot in the back?

George Washington's nephew John had received his sword passed down to him as an inheritance.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:47 PM | Permalink | Comments

From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition is an anthology of essays and writings by historian Clyde Wilson. As Joseph Stromberg writes in the introduction, "Dr. Clyde Wilson is a Christian, a Southerner, an American, an historian and a conservative. For over three decades he has worked on the definitive edition of the Papers of John C. Calhoun, has written on Calhoun and published a collection of Calhoun's most important writings." Wilson is a luminary figure amongst southern conservatives in my humble opinion, and yet modest about his own accomplishments. He has also written a splendid biographical history of General James Johnston Pettigrew and assembled an anthology of essays in tribute to the late Mel Bradford. As Stromberg opines, "His writings-published in Modern Age, Chronicles, Telos, and many other forums-shows Professor Wilson off as the kind of conservative who is a stalwart defender of federalism and republicanism, and the liberties associated with them. Such conservatives are few and far between these days."

For most of American history, the old Jeffersonian Democrats, sometimes referred to as Southern conservatives, were the most plentiful and common American type and now they are largely forgotten. The prescriptive wisdom of the old Jeffersonian Republicans lives on and is brilliantly encapsulated in the writings of Clyde Wilson. From his easy-to-read historical exposition of southern conservative statesmen to his stalwart defense of states' rights, Wilson offers a refreshing bit of conservative sobriety with this enlightening collection of essays accumulated over the years. Wilson defends Jefferson and spells out just why so many people from the Right and the Left hate Jefferson, and are committed to tarnishing and maligning his historical legacy. My favorite essays are those recollecting the legacy and contributions of the Old Republicans - James Monroe, George Mason, John Taylor of Caroline, John Randolph of Roanoke, and Nathaniel Macon. The Old Republicans were in fact more Jeffersonian than Jefferson himself as Wilson expounds upon the Tertium Quids with amazing clarity. Like Mel Bradford, Wilson is appreciative of the rich republican legacy and the Constitution, but keen to admit the prescriptive wisdom of the Anti-Federalists in light of history. The Constitution in our time has been thoroughly subverted and rendered a dead letter by "construction."

Wilson is no mere nostalgic revisionist and his realism compels him to admit that lately us Jeffersonian Republicans have been on the losing side of American history. A free republic requires a self-reliant, resourceful, resiliant and productive populace not apt to look to the state for its sustenance and financial provision. In our time, dependency on the paternalistic state is at an all-time high and it is apparently what many people want. Nonetheless, Wilson gives southern conservatives a reason to hold their head up high as he and other torchbearers continue to kindle the flame to pass on to a new generation of conservatives. The Roman statesmen Cicero avowed, "Long before our time the customs of our ancestors molded admirable men, in turn these men upheld the ways and institutions of their forebears. Our age, however, inherited the Republic as if it were some beautiful painting of bygone ages, its colors already fading through great antiquity; and not only has our time neglected to freshen the colors of the picture, but we have failed to preserve its forms and outlines." It is through the Jeffersonian tradition and the legacy of southern conservatives that we may find the brilliant colors and hues to refresh the colors of our the picture and by prudent understanding of history we can restore those forms and outlines of our fragile republic. Perhaps with perseverance, we can one day effectuate Jefferson's vision of an empire of liberty and restoration of the republic. Wilson is a bold visionary and though realistic about political realities now, he is not possessed of a spirit of resignation and defeatism. This distinguished southern gentleman has left a legacy of scholarship that will be disseminated for years to come. With his Calhoun scholarship, he bequeaths to posterity some potent tools for republican restoration.

In summation, Wilson's accumulated scholarship invigorates the Jeffersonian tradition, and gives us southern conservatives a reason to be emboldened about our political prospects despite the formidable odds. At the very least we have a venerable republican tradition and able torchbearers like Dr. Clyde Wilson to bequeath the flame of liberty to future generations, which should give us hope of future restoration of the republic. As a southern conservative, I have been honored to make Dr. Wilson's acquaintance and hear his lectures.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:42 AM | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:24 AM | Permalink | Comments

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
—Thomas Jefferson

The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals... it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.
—Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430

The evils of this deluge of paper money are not to be removed until our citizens are generally and radically instructed in their cause and consequences, and silence by their authority the interested clamors and sophistry of speculating, shaving, and banking institutions. Till then, we must be content to return quoad hoc to the savage state, to recur to barter in the exchange of our property for want of a stable common measure of value, that now in use being less fixed than the beads and wampum of the Indian, and to deliver up our citizens, their property and their labor, passive victims to the swindling tricks of bankers and mountebankers.
—Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:185

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:52 AM | Permalink | Comments

After the Civil War, Alexander Hamilton Stephens, the former Vice President of the Confederacy and a political theorist and historian whose insights have not received the attention they deserve, called attention to the late war and its aftermath as an example of the trend toward empire and centralization:

If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

In 1783, after the American War for Independence, a British captain confiding these prescient words to an American General:

When all of you are in your graves, there will be wars and rumors of wars in this country. There are too many different interests in it, for them to be united. One of those days, the northern and southern powers will fight as vigorously against each other, as they both united to do against the British.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:53 PM | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:36 PM | Permalink | Comments

When I was younger, it was easy to be a reactionary defender of the United States of America in history. That reactionary nature was hardened by the tactics of the political Left to attack and malign America's heroes and heritage: and summing up American history as a festival of slave oppression, indian killing, and imperial capitalism violently suppressing organized labor. But as I grew older, I came to realize that the U.S. government wasn't always altruistic in its aims... that it was frequently seized by selfish and corrupt interests, and could pursue the most naked acts of aggression, oppression, and violence, so as to disturb the human conscience.

The Philippine-American War was one such example of a shameful and avoidable war where countless Filipinos died at American hands.

As Philadelphia Ledger writer J. Franklin Bell reported: “Our men have been relentless; have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives ... from lads of 10 and up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog... Our men have pumped salt water into men to ‘make them talk’ ... [then] stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down as an example to those who found their bullet-riddled corpses.” Needless to say, America didn’t give the Filipinos independence. McKinley justified U.S. occupation by saying that it was our duty to civilize and Christianize the Filipinos, who were largely already Roman Catholics. But the U.S. Government did little to 'Christianize,' instead it engaged in a cruel-hearted and brutal systematic ethnic cleansing of dissidents, and even those mildly associated with dissidents including women and children. It was amoral and reprehensible, and a blight on the American memory. Some newspapers were honest; others engaged in yellow journalism and warhawkism accusing the Filipinos of killing their own people and burning down their own villages, as Fighting Joe Wheeler dubiously claimed.

Writer Mark Twain opposed the war by using his influence in the press. He felt it betrayed American ideals and was little more than naked imperialism, masking under altruistic ideological claims of a benevolent civilizing imperialism:

There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it — perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands — but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector — not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now — why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation.

General Jacob H. Smith's infamous order "KILL EVERY ONE OVER TEN" was the caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. (Click the picture to the right to enlarge the picture.) The Old Glory draped an American shield on which a vulture replaced the bald eagle. The bottom caption exclaimed, "Criminals Because They Were Born Ten Years Before We Took the Philippines." Published in the New York Journal-American, May 5, 1902.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:08 PM | Permalink | Comments

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs.
—Booker T. Washington, My Larger Education (1911)

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:27 AM | Permalink | Comments

"The gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of the money supply, under the gold standard, is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments."
—Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy, p. 65

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:58 AM | Permalink | Comments

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
—U.S. CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT X

Delegation from the people gives power its legitimacy. Enumeration limits that power. Roger Pilon, the Senior Fellow at the Cato Center for Constitutional Studies, judiciously explains: “What the Tenth Amendment says, in a nutshell, is this: if a power has not been delegated to the federal government, that government simply does not have it. In that case it becomes a question of state law whether the power is held by a state or, failing that, by the people, having never been granted to either government.” Though, the fundamental purpose of delegation and circumscribing the limits of power under the auspices of a written constitution was to effectively restrain the exercise of government power within knowable limits prescribed by law. “The two fundamental correlative elements of constitutionalism,” observes Charles McIlwain, “for which all lovers of liberty must yet fight are the legal limits to arbitrary power and a complete political responsibility of government to the governed.”

To the State governments are reserved all legislation and administration in affairs which concern their own citizens only, and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners or the citizens of other States; these functions alone being made federal. The one is domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government; neither having control over the other, but within its own department. There are one or two exceptions to this partition of power.
—Thomas Jefferson

The state governments not only retain every power, jurisdiction, and right not delegated to the United States, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, but they are constituent and necessary parts of the federal government; and without their agency in their political character, there could be neither a senate, nor president of the United States, the choice of the latter depending immediately, and on the former, immediately, upon the legislatures of the several states in the union.
—St. George Tucker

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments

I was watching a National Geographic documentary on pirates with my parents, and they had some sociologist/historian commenting on how "democratic" and "egalitarian" the character of pirate ships were in decision-making, as if they were a model of good governance, and ahead of their times. I had to stop from laughing. Yeah, I find humor in stupid stuff. I made one of my wisecracks, "well, it seems democracy and piracy go hand in hand."

If I must be enslaved let it be by a King at least, and not by a parcel of upstart lawless Committeemen. If I must be devoured, let me be devoured by the jaws of a lion, and not gnawed to death by rats and vermin.
—Samuel Seabury, Anglican Bishop, British Loyalist

Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?

['Martin, I understood you to be a patriot.']
...

"An elected legislature can trample a man's rights just as easily as a king can."
—Benjamin Martin, (played by Mel Gibson), The Patriot

"Even 51 per cent of a nation can establish a totalitarian and dictatorial règime, suppress minorities, and still remain democratic; there is, as we have said, little doubt that the American Congress and the French Chambre have a power over their respective nations which would rouse the envy of a Louis XIV or a George III were they alive today."
—Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Liberty or Equality, p. 88.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:32 PM | Permalink | Comments

"The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution."
—Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia

Cities are not built on a humane scale. They are usually cesspools of crime, corruption, legal plunder, loose morals, and bad political preferences for welfarism and Big Government.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments

Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the ability to handle conflict through peaceful means.
—Ronald Reagan

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:05 AM | Permalink | Comments

Let us have no foolishness indeed. Equality as a moral or political imperative, pursued as an end in itself — Equality, with the capital “E” — is the antonym of every legitimate conservative principle. Contrary to most Liberals, new and old, it is nothing less than sophistry to distinguish between equality of opportunity (equal starts in the “race of life”) and equality of condition (equal results). For only those who are equal can take equal advantage of a given circumstance. And there is no man equal to any other, except perhaps in the special, and politically untranslatable, understanding of the Deity. Not intellectually or physically or economically or even morally. Not equal! Such is, of course, the genuinelly self-evident proposition. Its truth finds a verification in our bones and is demonstrated in the unselfconscious acts of our everyday lives: vital proof, regardless of our private political persuasion. Incidental equality, engendered by the pursuit of our other objectives, is, to be sure, another matter. Inside the general history of the West (and especially within the American experience) it can be credited with a number of healthy consequences: strength in the bonds of community, assent to the authority of honorable regimes, faith in the justice of the gods.
—Mel Bradford

Makes sense to me. Equality as an ideal, is only desirable in terms of impartiality before the law.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Comments

"I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
—David Crockett

David Crockett was the Ron Paul of the American antebellum era. He represented Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives, served in the Texas Revolution, and died at the age of 49 at the Battle of the Alamo. Where have all the guys with his gumption gone?

Not Yours to Give
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Comments

Is Constitution Day—a federally mandated, unfunded program designed to educate Americans about the constitution—unconstitutional? The simple answer. Yes, it commandeers state policy, and compels them to follow national guidelines in absence of constitutional authority. If Americans can figure this out, then they ought to be able to figure out the Tenth Amendment. It was a Byrd-brained idea conjured up by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a man who gloats incessantly about how great the Constitution is, while he hypocritically votes for billions of unconstitutional pork-projects for his home state.

Heritage published a related article: Is Constitution Day Unconstitutional?

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:23 AM | Permalink | Comments

VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[Sec. 1] Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

[Sec. 3] And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments

There nonetheless remains a fundamental difference between northern and southern versions of religious tolerance. In the north the people are wont to say, "You worship God in your way, and we'll worship Him in ours." This delightful formulation says, in effect, that since religion is of little consequence anyway, why argue? In contrast, the southern version, well expressed in an old joke, says: "You worship God in your way, and we'll worship Him in His." From the early days of the Republic, when Baptists led the the fight for religious freedom and the separation of church and state, white southerners have done rather well in living together with mutual respect and tolerance for each other's religious views. Always reminding themselves of human frailty, they are perfectly tolerant of some damned fool's right to choose eternal damnation. But they are not about to pretend that they regard another's religion as intrinsically equal to their own.
—Eugene Genovese, The Southern Tradition: The Achievements and Limitations of an American Conservatism

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments

Is it a coincidence that most banks won't offer certificates of deposits on terms longer than a year? Or do banks sense something I have long sensed: the looming prospect of runaway inflation that could break loose anytime now.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:41 AM | Permalink | Comments

This article really doesn't need any commentary: it speaks for itself.

Monitor Thy Neighbor
by Rep. Ron Paul.

Opposition to the Patriot Act, legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President last year, is growing. Americans are beginning to understand that many precious liberties have been put in jeopardy by the government’s rush to enact new laws in the wake of September 11th. Federal law enforcement agencies now have broad authority to conduct secret, warrantless searches of homes; monitor phone and internet activity; access financial records; and undertake large-scale tracking of American citizens through huge databases. We’re told this is necessary to fight the unending war on terror, but in truth the federal government has been seeking these powers for years. September 11th simply provided an excuse to accelerate the process and convince all of us to relinquish more and more of our privacy to the federal government.

Now the Justice department wants to extend the new investigative powers to private citizens. It recently unveiled Operation TIPS-terrorism Information and Prevention System- as part of President Bush’s Citizen Corps initiative. The goal is to enlist thousands or even millions of Americans to act as spies for the government, reporting suspicious activity to officials using a handy toll-free hotline. The Justice department especially hopes to enlist mailmen, delivery drivers, plumbers, gas-meter readers, and the like, as they have access to private homes and businesses in their daily work. As usual, the war on terrorism is offered as justification for this proposal.

This almost might be funny if it were not real. Imagine the rampant abuses possible with a national spy program. Busybodies across the country will clamor to join the effort and act as self-appointed neighborhood vigilantes. Unscrupulous individuals of every stripe will abuse the program by snitching on ex-spouses, personal enemies, and racial groups they don’t like. Bickering neighbors will enjoy calling in to report unkempt lawns and barking dogs as sure signs of nefarious activity. I certainly hope the Justice department employs some very patient people to field the flood of useless calls.

If a government-sponsored snitch program sounds pretty bad to you, you’re not alone. Some commentators draw parallels between Operation TIPS and the citizen informants of the former East German Stasi secret police. Of course, suggesting the obvious- that citizen spy programs are incompatible with a free society- invites denunciations and sharp reminders that "we’re at war." Remember, however, that wars have been used throughout modern history to justify rapid expansion of state power at the expense of personal liberty. We cannot remain free if we allow the endless, undeclared war on to serve as an excuse for giving up every last vestige of our privacy.

I applaud Congressman Dick Armey for adding a provision to the homeland security bill that would prohibit the Justice department from implementing the TIPS program. His opposition brings needed public attention to this terrible idea. But even if Congress supports him, there is no guarantee another informant proposal will not surface soon thereafter. Congressional oversight of administrative agencies (consider the Treasury department and its renegade IRS) is nonexistent. The Justice department almost certainly will seek another way to implement the program, with or without congressional approval.

Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what kind of society we hope to leave our children and grandchildren. A civilized and free society would not be discussing, much less seriously debating, any proposal to enlist private citizens to act as federal neighborhood snitches.

Posted by Ryan S. at 3:08 AM | Permalink | Comments

"Because Roman civilization perished through barbarian invasions, we are perhaps too much inclined to think that is the only way a civilization can die.

If the lights that guide us ever go out, they will fade little by little, as if of their own accord...

We therefore should not console ourselves by thinking that barbarians are still a long way off. Some peoples may let the torch be snatched from their hands, but others stamp it out themselves."
—Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:08 AM | Permalink | Comments

Huckabee, the strong contender has no substantial leadership qualities, and no real vision. That much is obvious upon a limited inquiry. Everyone knows I'm gung-ho for Ron Paul, and think he is the absolutely best candidate. Having said that, I think a lot of Fred Thompson says about federalism makes sense. It's not simply something that should be a possible solution: it's something mandated by the supreme law of the land. Now, his eventual commitment to that idea is moot. I am not so sure he has any greater plans than continuing money being poured into the federal trough, and rolling money back to the states in the forms of block grants. I have a problem with that, because its not constitutional as per Tenth Amendment, and though it might be more efficient than letting decision-makers in Washington, D.C. control the funds, I fundamentally question the whole rationale for federal involvement in commandeering state programs in the first place. But if I were picking a lesser of evils among candidates after Ron Paul—I would probably say a Thompson presidency would be the least disadvantageous. Notice, this isn't an endorsement. God save us from Huckabee—we don't need anymore Arkansas governors in the White House!

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments

Richard A. Viguerie "[p]ioneered political use of computerized direct mail... it enabled conservatives to get around liberals' nce of the mass media; it allowed thousands of conservative candidates, organizations and causes to get their messages to grassroots Americans." He has since urged conservatives to no longer give blind deference to the Republican Party, particularly in light of its rank betrayal and compromise on matters concerning fiscal conservatism, federalism and states' rights issues, and social conservatism. His book Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause is an eye-opener.

Eight Steps You Can Take
to Help Free Conservatism from
Big Government Republicanism

1. Cut off your support of the Republican National Committee and other party
fundraising committees. Tell them you are not willing to have your money and political energy used mostly to support Big Government Republicans who don’t share your conservative views. Give 100% of your political donations to principled conservative causes and candidates.

2. Withhold support for now of all 2008 GOP presidential candidates. Support only a candidate who “walks with us” like Ronald Reagan and who will publicly criticize and oppose Big Government Republicans.

3. Demand sweeping changes in the Republican congressional leadership. Only with new, principled conservative leaders will the Republican Party be worthy of support from the conservative majority in America.

4. No longer think of yourself as a Republican, but rather as a Reagan conservative committed to building the conservative movement into an independent third Force (not a third party) pushing both major political parties to the Right.

5. Express your outrage over the country’s direction wherever an opportunity presents itself—at political town hall meetings, on call-in talk shows, with personal visits and in letters and telephone calls to your political representatives, and in letters to the editor and participation in online chat rooms/discussion groups.

6. Leadership begins with each of us. Set up a Web site to express your views, become blogger, and e-mail good conservative articles to family and friends. Get involved in political campaigns, either as a candidate or to support others who will challenge Big Government Republicans.

7. Launch your new leadership role by going to ConservativesBetrayed.com. Sign our petitions, vote online, and participate in our political soap boxes to express your disappointment and frustration, as well as to present your ideas for constructive action.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments

If you're African-American or Hispanic in the United States, the federal government tacitly thinks you are too irresponsible to save for a down payment on a house, therefore they will subsidize it for you, Tenth Amendment notwithstanding! The Republican Party hasn't been this generous to ethnic minorities since the creation of the Freedman's Bureau in the 1860s. Dependency on legal plunder of this sort cultivates indolence with anybody—whether white or black.

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:51 PM | Permalink | Comments

The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made
by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they
cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;
if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or
undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the
law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow."

--Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (Federalist No. 62, 1788)

Reference: The Federalist

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:19 AM | Permalink | Comments

I will be attentive to being more constructive in my constitutional history book, and shun the destructive style of political polemics. It's better to build up as optimist who constructively seeks republican restoration and America's renewal. I genuinely hope for a revival of dual federalism and states' rights. Americans see that things just don't change regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in power. What we need to do his trace the steps of our nation's history, prudently analyze the missteps, and seek to peaceably effectuate republican restoration and renewal of the constitutional federal republic our founders gave us!

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments

Justice Louis Brandeis described the most basic right as “the right to be left alone.” This wisdom seems lost to an age where government is accustomed to graft, waste, corruption, meddling, harrassment and intervention in seemingly every facet of life. With a government employee around every corner, it's bound to happen. A wise law professor of mine and former administrative judge once said, the federal government isn't efficient at much of anything except destroying people's lives. It's a shame the wisdom of the founding fathers of our country has been lost in our time.

May the Republic renew its commitment to the Constitution, limited government, the rule of law, and respecting the right of every American to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Walter Williams says, if liberty dies in the United States, then it is doomed to die everywhere.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:03 PM | Permalink | Comments

What does it say about the illegal alien problem in this country that the enforcement arm of the federal government — namely Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (also known by its acroynm ICE)— devotes almost all of its resources merely to the apprehension of illegal aliens that are wanted for criminal wrong-doing? What happened to enforcement of our nation's immigration laws?

Instead of upholding the law, politicians these days are talking about giving social security benefits to people who entered the country illegally and have been evading taxes for many years. Why the double standard? American citizens are harshly punished for tax evasion, and yet illegals are given freebies and rewarded strangely enough despite never contributing to society with taxes.

One-third of the federal prison population consists of illegal aliens. What does this say about the gridlock and failure of the U.S. government to address our border problem with our Latin America neighbors? The street-tough Salvadorans in the infamous MS-13 gang have swept across the United States like a plague. Many illegal aliens from Latin America come to this country with radical Leftist political affinities and their political acolytes are Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez. These are just the kind of people we need to help sustain the American experiment in ordered liberty, huh?

For more information, please read Whatever It Takes by Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R—AZ)

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments

Law Enforcement Alliance of America is a fraternal organization of law enforcement professionals with a pretty sound record. For starters, they affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and intuitively know that the best implement for defending the personal safety of peace officers—namely handguns—also serves to protect the lives of ordinary, everyday citizens. They have went on a media campaign against the pro-gun control Big Government Republican Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg, and urged the mayor to reaffirm support for self-defense.

The U.S. Senate is trying to drum up support for concealed carry bill universal nation-wide, but it is applicable only for peace officers. I say there is already a carry law in the fabric of the Constitution itself that needs to be given efficacy: it's called the Second Amendment. It's for every law-abiding American.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
—Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:49 PM | Permalink | Comments

The Cost of the Federal Government in a Freer America by Richard Ebeling, courtesy of Foundation for Economic Education

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments

Charles Colson's advancement of prison ministries through PFP and the concept of restorative justice has done. But more needs to be done. IFI Freedom Initiative (IFI) is a proven faith-based Reentry Program that was started by Prison Fellowship (PF) in 1997.

The Biblical imagery of God setting captives free resonates with those who know they are in bonds for their wrongs—and yet they are accepted in Christ on the basis of faith, repentance, and receiving the implanted Word that saves souls. The message of the Gospel is one of hope and redemption—and for those who accept the finished work of the risen Savior comes realization that God has wiped the slate clean of our sin debt. God's justice demands punishment. But God's grace is something given to someone not deserved.

The old way of doing things in penology is tried and failed... the Liberal Democrat way of coddling the criminal, victimizing them, denying the need for punishment and blaming society is a failure. Likewise, the familiar tough-on-crime, law-and-order Republican way of letting them rot in jail after convicted and stimulating crime through entrapment and other dubious tactics to secure convictions doesn't work either. The criminal justice system needs to embrace the restorative justice model. Crime prevention needs to weigh on restorative justice, as peace officers often have to meditate disputes that hardly necessitate punishment of the parties involved.

More importantly, the church needs to minister to the troubled souls therein. I firmly believe Christianity offers something that secular humanist psychologists can never offer prisoners—redemption and hope. God has come to set the captives free. Though, some may spend a lifetime in prison justly and must not mistake their suffering for wrong as suffering for right, that sinful man can find redemption in Christ, just as the thief on the Cross did.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:10 AM | Permalink | Comments

Fellowship of Christian Police Officers appears to be an upstanding Christian fraternal organization for police officers. We need more Christians that take their faith seriously in the blue ranks.

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Comments

WorldNetDaily reports that Homeschoolers are being preyed upon in the Federal Republic of Germany, and it seems the ghost of Hitler lives. In Nazi Germany, the totalitarian state made several major strides towards solidifying control of society in the hands of the state. A major stride was the effort to topple the federal state and dispense with states' rights and local control, in favor of omnipotent central government. One vital pillar in the totalitarian nation-building project involved nationalization of education coupled with compulsory attendance laws and abolition of any competiting mediums such as private parochial schools or homeschooling. It seems, in twenty-first century Germany old habits die hard. Today, ordinary Germans, particularly conservative Christians, that object to these policies, and insist upon homeschooling their children are treated as little better than common criminals. In some cases, they are subjected to police harrassment, arrest, and even excessive use of force such as SWAT team raids, as well as losing custody of their children.

Posted by Ryan S. at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments