Christian Covenanter

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