We have witnessed the health care debacle that has taken place in the House and the Senate. One cannot help but lament the complete lack of honorable character displayed by these members of Congress. Imagine what kind of country the Founding Fathers would have created [...]]]> Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Never this in my day . . .

We have witnessed the health care debacle that has taken place in the House and the Senate. One cannot help but lament the complete lack of honorable character displayed by these members of Congress. Imagine what kind of country the Founding Fathers would have created if they were of like character and had behaved in a similar fashion when they gathered at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. One could imagine the proceedings would have been such as this:

John Langdon (New Hampshire delegate): Because the citizens of Pennsylvania are many, and our count is few in number by comparison, I motion that the citizenry from the great State of Pennsylvania be required to annually contribute one percent of their income to the treasury of New Hampshire to promote the general welfare of our citizenry, and that this income redistribution design be adopted into article eight of this proposed constitution.

Robert Morris (Pennsylvania delegate): Mr. Langdon, have you properly considered that it may not be the lack of population density that afflicts the general welfare of your fellow citizens, but rather their idle propensity? Why do you and your colleague, Mr. Gilman, arrive late, two months already into these proceedings, and then propose to take advantage of our industry?

John Langdon: Mr. Morris, I take offense to your suggestion that the citizens of New Hampshire are slothful. To the contrary, we are no less industrious than Pennsylvanians. But shall our representation in this new government suffer merely because your men are better skilled in the art of copulation and your women are all too accommodating? Shall our voices be heard in fewer numbers in this congress simply because we are more virtuous?

Jacob Broom (Delaware delegate): Mr. President, if I may.

George Washington (Virginia delegate and acting president of the convention): Yes, Mr. Broom, you may proceed.

Jacob Broom: I have traveled throughout Pennsylvania many times, and I have found their women to be most obliging, perhaps rivaled only by those from New York. The problem is that Pennsylvanians rely on an inferior grade of animal gut used in the manufacture of their condoms. Our manufacturing houses in Delaware are the epitome of modernization, and our ranchers cultivate a superior grade of sheep gut used to craft the finest product. I second the motion of my distinguished colleague, Mr. Langdon, provided we have a provision in the constitution that provides for subsidies to our sheep farmers in Delaware and that the government purchase and distribute our condoms throughout the educational systems. Is there no better place to teach morality and responsibility to our progeny than in our schools?

Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts delegate): Excuse me, Mr. President. I am well familiar with the Delaware devices, and although the quality is much improved, they do have on occasion the unpleasant inclination to break; objectionable in the respect that I have women in every port on the eastern seaboard harassing me for perpetual payment in support of these little bastard children who have the misfortune of being born unto women of dubious character. Our medical practices in Massachusetts are among the finest in the confederation. I second the motion of my colleague from Delaware, provided we have a provision in the constitution that collects taxes to fund the establishment and perpetual operation of facilities in Massachusetts dedicated to fetal life termination and scientific by-product research.

William Blount (North Carolina delegate): Good, God, Mr. Gorham! Have you lost all capacity for sanity? This is blasphemy!

John Rutledge (South Carolina delegate): Mr. Blount, why show you such indignation at the well-reasoned motion of our colleague, Mr. Gorham? Do you not see the soundness of his analysis? First, we must consider that jobs would be created in Massachusetts; useful employment that would provide its citizens with the coin needed to trade amongst our here represented states. Second, because of the scientific component to the funding, these persons could be in the employ of the government, and thus ensure a permanent voting bloc of citizenry needed to perpetuate our government institutions.

John Blair (Virginia delegate): I concur, Mr. Rutledge. And we must also consider the harmful consequences associated with this proposed constitution that denies our respective states the right to import African slaves after the year 1805. Where hence shall we get the necessary labor for our industry? I second the motion of Mr. Gorham, provided we have a provision in the constitution that provides tax subsidies to the treasury of Virginia for the establishment and perpetual operation of orphanages to feed and house those fugitives from the scientific laboratories in Massachusetts. Is there no better place to secure the future labor needed to fund our government largesse than from the ranks of the unwanted? What fear have we of voters not yet conceived?

George Washington: Scribe, have you captured all of these motions for consideration?

Scribe: Yes, Mr. President, I believe so.

Roger Sherman (Connecticut delegate): Excuse me, Mr. President, but I have a point of order. These proceedings are not equitable; I didn’t get anything for the citizens of Connecticut!

George Washington: Very well, Mr. Sherman. Your point of order is noted. I have my trusted white stallion, Nelson, stabled at Mr. Hopkins’s livery. As you know, Nelson was with me throughout the campaigns against the British, and as such, a certain amount of nobility and fame have accrued to his benefit. I shall let you ride Nelson to and from City Tavern this evening if you support these motions.

Roger Sherman: Thank you, Mr. President. I would consider it an honor to cast my vote endorsing these provisions that benefit our citizens and our nation in general. You have my full support.

Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania delegate): Gentlemen, have you forgotten the purpose for our gathering and debate? We are here for a constitution, not to curry favor for ourselves and our constituents.

Jonathan Dayton (New Jersey delegate): The constitution—what the hell does that have to do with anything?

All delegates in unison: Yeah, what does the constitution have to do with anything?

Benjamin Franklin (quoting from this speech at the convention): In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of dangers, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance?

I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages . . . .

§

Thank you, Mr. Franklin, for these enduring words of wisdom. We are many who are grateful that you and your contemporaries were men of sound character. It is hard to imagine what nation might have been created if the founders were men of character such as we find in Washington today.

We are many who shall do as you begged leave to move in your message to the convention of 1787—we shall implore the Heavens to purge the evils of the blatantly corrupt and oppressive government that has become Washington. We have not witnessed, as pundits would have us believe, the normal process by which laws are made. Rather, the Heavens have held up a mirror to show us the degenerate government that Washington has become.

Instead of despair, we shall beseech the Heavens to send laborers to rebuild our federal government and return it to those principles enshrined in our founding documents. Imagine that!

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it [...]]]> Mr. O’s Notable Quotable

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. Thomas Jefferson (Declaration of Independence)

It had been a long four months. The debate was constant and – at times – the exchange was heated. To the participants of the meeting, the cooperative effort to craft the ideas that would shape the founding of a nation, and the collaboration to codify these ideas into [...]]]> Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Where is the republic?

It had been a long four months. The debate was constant and – at times – the exchange was heated. To the participants of the meeting, the cooperative effort to craft the ideas that would shape the founding of a nation, and the collaboration to codify these ideas into a mere 4,444 word document, was by no means a preordained undertaking; a fact that was all too evident when the convention nearly broke apart in disarray on several occasions, not to mention when some members walked out in protest. But they had finally reached this moment in time—on the afternoon of 17 September 1787—when the work product was complete and all that remained to do was for the contributors to affix their marks to the parchment. The signatures were penned, one by one, except three. And then the convention was adjourned to City Tavern where members of the historic event gathered together one last time for nourishment and reflection. Posterity would prove the magnificence of the Guiding Hand that worked its way in that summer of 1787.

At age eighty-one, Benjamin Franklin was the elder statesmen at the convention. Infirm, Mr. Franklin would journey to and from Independence Hall, carried forth by four inmates from the local jail. It was on this last day of the convention, as he was leaving Independence Hall, a woman stopped the quintet to ask, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?”

The reply came without hesitation. “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

§

It is with great sadness that paper and pen meet to offer this response to Mr. Franklin: “I am sorry, sir; but we have not kept it.”

Perhaps we lost it when President Woodrow Wilson—who lamented the “defects” in our constitution because of the separation of powers it enshrined—implemented policies to concentrate power in the hands of so-called enlightened men in Washington and embarked upon the period we call liberalism or progressivism: tyranny, by another name. Thomas Jefferson warned us of such activity when he said, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

John Adams said, “Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.” Perhaps we lost it when the federal government encroached upon public education to change what was taught and how it should be funded, so much so that the principles of our founding have been lost to generations of Americans. Benjamin Disraeli warned us of such tactics when he said, “It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”

Perhaps we lost it when President Roosevelt embarked upon his New Deal entitlement programs and laid the foundation for confiscatory taxation and income redistribution. Jefferson warned us of such things when he said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” John Adams reiterated the warning when he said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

Perhaps we lost it through the repeated intrusion of the federal government on the authority and sovereignty of the state governments—so much so that now even Mr. Universe himself, the governor of the State of California, goes to Washington, crawling on his knees with begging-bowl in hand. James Madison warned us that such “ambitious encroachments” by the federal government “would be signals of general alarm,” and he pondered in Federalist 46, “what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.”

Perhaps we lost it when our elected federal representatives discarded their oath and the limits placed upon them by the constitution. You would think it a very easy oath to uphold, since Article I, Section 8 of the constitution grants only eighteen clearly written powers to the federal government. Jefferson was clear when he said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated,” and James Madison confirmed, “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

But regardless of when the event occurred—if indeed, it was a single event at all—the republic is surely lost. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill that contained a provision to help the mentally ill in society. When explaining the reason for his veto, President Pierce said, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. To approve the measure would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” James Madison was equally clear on such matters when he said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries were not heartless men; they were passionate about many things, just as we are today. But their zeal for liberty far exceeded their fervor to reach into another’s pocket to subsidize their interests. They knew, as did the Frenchman Frederic Bastiat, that “when plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” And so they fought a war to rid the land of the pillaging that had become a way of life for the British Crown.

Does this not describe our society and the actions of politicians in Washington today? Do they not enshrine theft and other mischief in legal code and then glorify their actions while they luxuriate in the fruits of their plunder? How is it possible that the same constitution that prevented President Pierce from passing legislation benefiting the mentally ill now grants authority to the federal government to nationalize automotive companies, insurance companies, student loans, and private healthcare? How soon before these very same politicians set their sights on energy, private pensions, and other property to which they also have no constitutional authority to confiscate? Or as Thomas Paine said, “We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.”

Thomas Paine would recognize the new pretenses created for revenue and taxation if he were alive today. Do we not hear the rhetoric of a demagogue when we listen to a president slander insurance companies, health-care providers, energy companies, and private citizens who earn a wage that is deemed excessive, while he simultaneously pits citizen against citizen to create class warfare? This is the oratory and agitating well-familiar to students of the Communist Manifesto. Perhaps you notice the abundance of quotes from our Founding Fathers and their contemporaries used herein to underscore a good deal of our founding principles that have been lost. Has our republic gone so far astray that our elected representatives know only to apply the language and doctrine of Karl Marx and not that of the Founders?

Benjamin Franklin knew of the warfare between the differing classes, and so he pondered not the proletariat and the bourgeoisie that consumed the thoughts of later Marxists, but rather the constant struggle between two other groups of people; those who use their God-given talents and rights of liberty to create, and those who abuse their natural blessings to take what has been created by the first. And so Benjamin Franklin wrote:

“As all history informs us, there has been in every State and Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh—get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever.”

No, we have not “kept it,” as Doctor Franklin challenged us to do. If Benjamin Franklin’s ghost was to be seen wandering the streets near Independence Hall today and he was asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?” he would likely respond:

“Madam, you have got neither. You have allowed yourselves to be outwitted, and now you have a government that claims unto itself the unalienable rights to control your Life, to confiscate your Liberty, and to hamper your pursuit of Happiness. You were given a constitutional republic, but you have not kept it—and so now you must take it back. Hurry while you can, for there are still those among you who have not forgotten the principles of freedom or the republic we bequeathed. But if you dither further, you shall learn of the bitterness about which my good friends wrote: you shall either taste the unpleasant truism of Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”; or you shall too late comprehend the harsh reality spoken by John Adams, who said, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

Thank you for the republic, Doctor Franklin . . . that is, if we can take it.

Sorry, I’m a little nervous . . . but I do get warmed up as I get going.

The learned scholars stood outside the entrance to the council chambers and waited to be summoned within to deliver their findings. Their silent [...]]]> What does Uncle Friar, the Town Crier say? Oh yes . . .
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Sorry, I’m a little nervous . . . but I do get warmed up as I get going.

The learned scholars stood outside the entrance to the council chambers and waited to be summoned within to deliver their findings. Their silent posturing conveyed to all passersby that a consensus between these three intellectuals was far from achieved, and so it made for an unusual amount of drama concerning a study that most community members considered a waste of time. After all, for most people there were far more pressing issues in the daily struggles of life than fretting over matters beyond their immediate control.

Clearly though, this was not the case for the three who stood waiting, pondering as if the fate of the entire world rested on the verdicts they would render. Suddenly, their attention shifted as Nawkaw, the youngest member of the esteemed council, appeared in the doorway to the council chamber. Nawkaw motioned with a simple nod of his head for the three to join the debate within.

Almost immediately upon entering, and entirely in violation of protocol, Bemidii loudly proclaimed, “There is no mistaking the evidence! The great sheets of ice are breaking apart and melting, and we will be doomed as a people unless we repent and change our ways at once!”

Nawkaw was about to rebuke the display, which showed both a lack of decorum and a lack of respect for the chamber, but the elder statesman inside abruptly raised his hand, silently commanding to let the outburst pass without notice.

Then, Waabaan—an Ojibwe chieftain—lowered his hand and turned his gaze to the newly arrived guests.

“Thank you for joining us this evening,” Chief Waabaan said, making a gentle directing motion with his hand toward the fire in the center of the council lodge. “Won’t you please sit by the fire and warm yourselves.”

Bemidii, Chas-chunk-a, and Migisi took their seats within the wigwam and sat silently, awaiting their turn to receive the smoking pipe of “goodwill” that was being passed to the members sitting around the fire. After an appropriate period of silence and reflection, Nawkaw again nodded, this time for Migisi to speak.

Migisi said, “I too have studied the ice mountains. And while great rocks of ice break away and tumble to the ground, I do not see anything different than what has occurred since the time I was a child. I do not share Bemidii’s belief that our people are doomed.”

Bemidii again violated the code of behavior and shouted, “And what do you think you know? You are just a silly old woman, always counseling for calm and reason! I say again, the ice is melting and will create great floods. We are doomed unless you, as council leaders, take immediate control over the affairs of our people and demand that they comply with the new ways in which we decide they must live!”

Chas-chunk-a calmly interjected, saying “My dear friend, while I agree with your reasoning that the ice is turning to water, by what right do you claim to control the affairs of other men and women? Are we not free, living beings? Do you also propose to control the affairs of the animal world and demand they change their ways? What strange medicine do you practice that allows you to proclaim, with absolute certainty, that compliance with your new ways will have any impact on the melting ice? Shall we surrender our freedom to you and your theories?”

Bemidii remained impassioned and mocked his friend. “I cannot believe you sit and do nothing while your reason confirms my belief that the ice is melting! What kind of strange madness do you practice?”

Bemidii’s continued outbursts and insults against those who did not share his beliefs caused the council deliberation to rapidly degenerate into a bedlam that lasted awhile. The chief sat remarkably still throughout the discourse, occasionally glancing at Nawkaw and signaling with his eyes that it was acceptable for the mayhem to continue.

Finally, during a temporary lull in the debate, Migisi looked across the fire and spoke to Chief Waabaan. “As my mother before me, always I have admired your wisdom and your respect for the rights of others, especially the weakest amongst us. But your voice has been strangely silent while this debate rages within. Please, may I ask to know your thoughts?”

Chief Waabaan slowly raised his smoking pipe to his lips and took a long, relaxing, puff. He then lifted his gaze to the top opening in the wigwam and slowly exhaled before redirecting his fixation to the center fire. He spoke to no one in particular—which was his customary manner—but everyone felt as if they were receiving personal guidance. The chief conveyed his thoughts little-by-little.

“What Bemidii says is true—that we must not dirty that which belongs to our neighbor. But we do not deposit our body waste, and we do not direct the smoke from our fires into our neighbor’s wigwam. If the heat and smoke from our fires are causing the ice mountains to melt, then why does our Great Father provide us with fallen trees for our fires, why does He send forth great flashes of light and thunder to ignite the prairies and the forests, and why does He cause rock mountains in distant lands to the west to flow red with fire from their bellies?”

Chief Waabaan paused to let the logic of his questions register before continuing. “I have often studied the ways of our Great Father, and I have reasoned that it is the nature of His mind to constantly move in an unhurried, back-and-forth rhythm. The depth of winter brings forth the warmth of summer, before winter returns again. The trees glide effortlessly between barrenness when snow covers the ground, and colorful brilliance in the moon of the falling leaves. The waters rush in and rush out without fail.

“I can see, with my own eyes, the gentle rhythm that occurs within this mysterious mind. And so I reason that someday the ice mountains will again move away and return to where they came, in the land to the north, because the stories passed down from our fathers tell us the ice mountains were not always here. And as night follows day, and day follows night, so I also reason that after resting for many seasons in faraway lands, they will again return to our lands.”

Everybody sitting around the fire gently nodded in concurrence with the quiet wisdom of Chief Waabaan.

After a period of personal reflection, and his passion subdued, Bemidii said tepidly, “Your words speak of things that have come before, and of things that may come again for those not yet born. Please accept my apology for my brash behavior in the presence of these wise men. But my concern is for those who live now. What shall we do if the great floods come while we live?”

Chief Waabaan slowly lifted his gaze from the fire and made direct eye contact with Bemidii. “We shall do as our fathers before us did, and as our brethren in the animal world must do—we adapt.”

§

The siren songs from global warming proponents would have you believe that the ice fields are rapidly melting and that an environmental disaster of epic proportions is about to be unleashed as ocean water levels rise and vast flooding spreads across the globe. And the supposed cause of all this prophetic misery is none other than the substance you exhale: carbon dioxide.

But the siren song is not a new one, as evidenced by Bemidii and Chas-chunk-a. While this short-story may be contemporary in nature, this work of fiction was set in the time period of . . . well, about twelve thousand years ago, in an area now known as northern Wisconsin. In that time, almost all of Canada and most of the northern United States were covered by glaciers.

Bemidii and Chas-chunk-a were predictive, because the “ice mountains” were indeed melting, a process that had started about nine thousand years earlier and which was completed about two thousand years after their deaths. And what of the great flooding that Bemidii had warned about? Yes, there was a great environmental disaster such as the world had never seen. The largest of these environmental disaster areas is known as “Gitchigoomie,” the Ojibwe name for Lake Superior.

What? You never thought of Lake Superior as an environmental disaster? Well, it is, as are the lakes Michigan, Huron, Ontario, and Eerie, if you follow the line of thinking from today’s global warming alarmists. And these Great Lakes are only a part of the environmental disaster suffered in these lands. Still today, more than ten thousand years after the glaciers melted, the citizens of northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and most of the province of Ontario live in a glacial melt environmental disaster area containing thousands of fresh water lakes. What a tragedy, indeed, for these folks who must cope with this environmental catastrophe on a daily basis.

The glacial melting that occurred more than ten thousand years ago is but a fraction of a second ago in the earth’s geological clock. It will be thousands of years hence before we know if the current glacial melt is a continuation of that which started about twenty-one thousand years ago, long before man had any industrial impact on the environment (what an inconvenient truth for those who want to blame man’s activities for global warming). Likewise, it will be that long before we know whether the pendulum Chief Waabaan spoke of is about to swing in the other direction.

But I devote time not to write about global warming, but to write instead about the loss of my property and my liberty. Nothing I can write here would persuade global warming enthusiasts of the silliness of their logic, for they are drunk with a religion that defies reason. Neither can an exposé of e-mail scandals, scientific cover-ups, or the hypocrisy of “do as I say, not as I do” politicians (who jet about in personal luxury) do anything to add to the debate; for if the global warming proponents say the earth is flat, then science be damned—the earth is flat.

The question is not whether global warming is real or whether global warming is man-made; that question is irrelevant in my opinion, for the mind of God will do as He will with His creation. The real question should be: “Is it a good thing to pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the ground that grows our food?”

Nobody, regardless of political persuasion, can realistically answer this question in the affirmative. What makes the issue a conservative versus liberal matter is that the liberal uses the scaremongering of global warming as justification to confiscate property and control the lives of other people. The conservative, on the other hand, rejects any attempt by the statists to confiscate personal property and personal liberty—for tyranny is always on the march, regardless of the disguise it uses. And so political battle lines are drawn, as they always are, between those who favor liberty and those who favor authoritarian government control.

If you believe, irrespective of your politics, that it is not a good thing to pollute the air, water, and ground, then do as Chief Waabaan counseled—adapt. Change your lifestyle, change your living habits, and reduce in totality your personal impact on the earth. But those who are the biggest proponents of forcing me to adapt to their ideas of utopia are the biggest polluters amongst us; they fly about in personal jets, luxuriate in the finest hotels and restaurants, and are chauffeured around town as they travel about from one global conference to another, scheming about ways to separate me from my property and my liberty.

If you also believe it is not a good thing to pollute the environment, and you are a proponent of cap-and-tax legislation, then how will sending trillions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer money to politicians in Washington reduce environmental pollution one damn bit? Or, as Chas-chunk-a more politely asked, “What strange medicine do you practice that allows you to proclaim, with absolute certainty, that compliance with your new ways will have any impact on the melting ice? Shall we surrender our freedom to you and your theories?”

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed [and hence clamorous to be led to safety] by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. [...]]]> Mr. O’s Notable Quotable

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed [and hence clamorous to be led to safety] by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. H. L. Mencken

Coming on 10 December 2009 . . . a global warming article by Granny Jones

The automobiles had pulled off the road into the recently harvested alfalfa field on this hot, August, Sunday afternoon. The only discerning pattern to the haphazard manner in which the vehicles were parked was that [...]]]> Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Part II in the series has been released. Read Part I, A Trivial Matter before reading this post.

The automobiles had pulled off the road into the recently harvested alfalfa field on this hot, August, Sunday afternoon. The only discerning pattern to the haphazard manner in which the vehicles were parked was that they appeared to be keenly focused on the pitched tent in the middle of the field. Dozens of people sat on the roofs of their cars and could be seen clapping and swaying to some unseen spiritual energy emanating from within the tent. The children sought a distinct form of divine renewal, so they huddled inside a second tent and exulted around an ample supply of peach cobbler and home-made vanilla ice cream.

Reverend John Thomas Booker was a third-generation preacher’s son, and he was truly a master of his craft at this stage in his distinguished career. Reverend Booker had skillfully focused the assembly for nearly forty-five minutes before leading them to this fevered climax.

“We the people have created the First Amendment to prevent the federal government from interfering with our religious liberty and with the societies we want to build, not the society they want to build,” the reverend thundered. “In whom do we trust—in the federal government or in our great Father in Heaven?”

“Hallelujah, J-T! Not in corrupt men, but in God!” screamed Minnie Russell.

“In God we trust! In God we trust!” the gathered flock chanted, reciting the words from the sixteenth-century Puritan battle flag.

Reverend Booker continued: “The government is now using this very amendment to tear apart the civil society we have built. This is not a benevolent blunder, but a carefully planned abuse of power to destroy us from within. Shall we remain silent and allow our character to be degraded, or shall we stand and fight?”

“No, Great God Almighty, we shall fight! The courts have no right to do this! It’s an establishment clause, stupid!” yelled an unknown participant.

The reverend grabbed his handkerchief and wiped the sweat from his forehead. Then he used the full force of his deep, commanding voice to bellow, “Who are they to tell us that this society must be transformed? Are we not free men and free women? Is this not our country and that of our forefathers? Why do we not renounce this abusive government and throw off this tyranny? Ladies and gentlemen, have we forgotten the words of that great patriot, Patrick Henry, who said:

‘Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three 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 . . . 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!’”

“Liberty! Liberty!” came forth the thunderous refrain.

Reverend Booker stood at the make-shift pulpit and, like a seasoned orchestra conductor, moved his outstretched arms in a rhythmic one-two, one-two motion to coordinate the chants of “Liberty! Liberty!” Finally, with a keen sense of timing, he turned and gave the approval for the choir to rejoice in “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

Hallelujah, Brother Booker! Now, that was inspirational!

§

Part I of this series titled “A Trivial Matter,” explained in part the causes of the English Reformation and ended with the pilgrims coming to America in 1620. It also provided some historical background on why the Establishment Clause was inserted into the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Who were the pilgrims and what drove them to uproot their lives and make a then perilous journey across a vast ocean? This (Part II in the series) tells the rest of the story and also provides some historical context for Reverend Booker’s political sermon on that Sunday afternoon in August, 2009. The reverend is a student of history and he knew his performance was not without precedent.

The English Reformation was part of the broader, European-wide Protestant Reformation that was begun in 1517 by the German priest and theology professor, Martin Luther. Martin Luther had taught that the Christian Bible should be the only source of divinely revealed knowledge, and as such he challenged the authority of the pope and the clergy to self-anoint as the solitary source on divine matters. Consistent with his teachings, Luther translated the bible from the language of the clergy (Latin) into the language of the people. It was during the reign of Henry VIII that English-language versions of the bible were smuggled into England from the printing presses in Germany.

The availability of an English-language Bible sparked a Christian, biblically-based revival in England. Out of this spark was born a new breed of people who were to become the spiritual drive behind the English Reformation. These people did not seek to destroy the Church of England, but instead sought to purify it of its corrupt practices. These early English reformers who sought church purification became known as the “Puritans.”

Many of the Puritans grew disaffected with the Church of England over its refusal to implement real reform. From the disaffected came forth a faction that believed total separation from the Church was the only way to achieve their objectives. Over one-third of the passengers who assembled for the voyage on the Mayflower in 1620 were Puritan separatists, and they would soon be followed by thousands of others with like sentiments. The Puritans eventually settled in what became known as the Connecticut Colony, and it is within this colony that they promptly set about implementing the ideas that were rejected by the Church of England.

Every society that has existed has had the need to organize its members in a way that promoted peaceful co-existence. The Greek philosopher Aristotle referred to this organization as a “civil society,” which can be defined as “the arena of voluntary collective action around shared interests, purposes and values.” In other words, what behavior do we adopt as a society and then proliferate from one generation to the next in order to promote a peaceful coexistence as we go about our lives? Every society has an acceptable code of behavior, including the animal kingdom.

The Connecticut Colony codified their civil society in a document known as the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The preamble to this document was unique in Western civilization for its time, because it expresses the idea that “where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God.” The Puritans established a civil society based on Divine Law as expressed in their English biblical revival roots; not based on the arbitrary laws of men, such as those of a king or a clergyman.

It is from the seventeenth-century Puritans that a working constitutional document was created around the ideas of unalienable, God-given natural rights of liberty and of self-government based on Divine Law. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut remained in effect from 1639 until 1662, whereupon it was incorporated into the Charter of Connecticut – the royal charter from King Charles II that established Connecticut as one of the original Thirteen Colonies. Later, the founders of the United States of America took these Puritan ideas, expanded upon them, and enshrined the result into the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Why did the founders adopt Puritan concepts of Divine Law as the basis for a new government? Because they knew, as did Aristotle, that a free, civil society cannot long endure without a moral code. If we are to be free to express our God-given rights of liberty, then there must be some commonly accepted rules that we use to self-govern our behavior and not infringe upon the natural rights of our fellow citizens. History has shown that in the absence of a self-governing code, it is in our capacity to sink into debauchery, greed, and a host of other undesirable traits. The more degenerate those among us become, the more we demand that the government applies correctives against those who commit offenses upon our personal liberty. An increase in offenders requires an increase in government to apply the correctives, and more government leads to less personal liberty. It is a downward spiral that leads to dictatorship.

Reverend Booker knew that the American Revolution was, at its heart, a continuation of the religious revolt against the British Crown, starting with the English Reformation in the sixteenth-century. It was a belief that government should be established under Divine Law and should be administered by a free people exercising their unalienable, God-given rights, versus having a government established under a dictatorial monarchy that occasionally bestows limited rights upon its subjects. Reverend Booker also knew it was the Black Regiment of the Colonies that was one of the principal campaigners for the revolution; “black” referring not to the skin color of its members, but the color of the robes worn by the preachers who gave firebrand sermons every Sunday.

The Charter of Connecticut remained the official constitution of Connecticut until a new constitution was adopted in 1818. Why is this significant? Because up until 1818, twenty-seven years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the Connecticut constitution established the Congregational Church as the official church of the state, and all Connecticut residents were required to attend church or pay taxes to support the Church. Connecticut was not unique in this regard. South Carolina was officially Protestant; Massachusetts did not change their constitution and disestablish from the Congregational Church until 1833; many other states endorsed Christianity in their constitutions without enumerating a specific denomination. Several states today prohibit atheists from holding public office (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas).

The opening passage in the First Amendment is an establishment clause preventing the federal government from creating an official church and religion; it does not prohibit the states from doing so, which they can do, and did do as permitted under the Tenth Amendment. The people who first immigrated to America established communities of their own choosing. They organized their governments and civil society around their faith and in accordance with their own conscience, as a free people should rightly be allowed to do. The Puritans settled in Connecticut, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and so on. The founders, on our behalf, wrote the establishment clause in the First Amendment to not only prevent the federal government from doing what Henry VIII had done in 1533, but also to prevent the government from tearing apart the civil societies that had already been built since the first arrivals in 1620 – a destruction that would have occurred had these communities not been allowed to operate in accordance with their beliefs and founding charters.

Contrast this history with our federal government today: our federal courts mandate that an Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from its state courthouse (Glassroth v. Moore, 2002); it prohibits the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky schools and, incredibly, proclaims that the “posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.” (Stone v. Graham, 1980); and it orders the removal of a cross erected in the Mojave desert as a monument to fallen soldiers of World War I because it is on public land (currently on appeal with the Supreme Court, Buono v. Salazar, 2009). The federal government is now using the Establishment Clause to prohibit us from “the free exercise thereof” clause, and in so doing, seeks to deny us our founding charter in an effort to remake our society in their preferred image.

It is difficult for tyranny to gain a foothold if we adhere to the principle that our rights are unalienable and bestowed by our Creator. But if you drive the Creator out of our national character, from whom do our rights derive? Patrick Henry said it best: “It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains.” That is why all great dictators, such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, forcefully drove the Creator out of public life, and that is why Reverend Booker knew that the removal of Divine Law from the public arena is “not a benevolent blunder, but a carefully planned attack on our civil society to destroy us from within.”

Reverend J.T. Booker was also shrewd to pitch his revival tent in the middle of an alfalfa field. Had he chosen—as the patriot, Patrick Henry had done in 1775—to deliver his exultation from the pulpit of St. John’s Church, then federal IRS agents would have swarmed in upon him to silence his dissent by threatening revocation of the Church’s tax exempt status. Perhaps it is time again for the Black Regiment to rise up and loudly proclaim to all who would listen, “It’s an establishment clause, stupid!” 

The portly gentleman stood on the terrace and huddled against the damp chill of the night air on this February evening. The full moon was just above the horizon, and it cast eerie shadows across the elaborate garden-maze below. The screams of agony echoing through the [...]]]> Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Part I in a two part series

The portly gentleman stood on the terrace and huddled against the damp chill of the night air on this February evening. The full moon was just above the horizon, and it cast eerie shadows across the elaborate garden-maze below. The screams of agony echoing through the castle corridors sent shivers of a different kind down the spine of this lone figure.

“Nooo! I’ve had enough!” the woman screamed in sheer pain. “Oh, God! Please, I beg you—make this suffering end!”

But God had already devised the plan eons before, and there was nothing He could do now but let the course of events unfold. The woman shrieked again, sweat profusely pouring down her face.

“Make it stop—please!” she wailed in misery.

And then, as if God had finally decided to intervene on the woman’s behalf—there was deathly silence. The gentleman standing outside suddenly tensed, nervously waiting for what came next—if anything. And then it came . . . the wails of a newborn baby.

The baby’s face was illuminated by the glow from the mother’s own, a blush that shone as bright as the moon on the white marble pavers in the garden outside.

“Your Highness,” a young assistant called out, walking briskly toward the doorway leading to the terrace.

The figure slowly turned his attention inward, glancing past the shoulder of the approaching aide toward mother and child in the distance, before redirecting his attention to receive the verdict. “Yes?” he anxiously replied.

“It is a girl, Your Highness!” Bessie happily declared.

The proclamation was politely received, and a subtle smile was returned, acknowledging the relief that both patients appeared well. “Thank you, Bessie,” he nodded, before slowly turning his attention back to the shadows sprawled out across the lawn. He contemplated the pronouncement for a few moments, and then gathered his thoughts and glanced up at the moon to convey his sentiments.

“Damn, a girl,” he bemoaned.

§

A girl indeed! And a rather strange response to what should have been a proud moment for the father—perhaps it was. But, as the saying goes, “on such trivial matters rests the fate of nations.”

The date was 18 February 1516, and the parents were King Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine of Aragon. The occasion was the birth of Mary, their third attempt at producing an heir to the throne. Katherine would give birth to six children between 1510 and 1518, but Mary would be the only surviving child. The first two births and the last three resulted in stillborn deliveries or infant death. Prince Henry, the second of Katherine’s children, survived only 52 days.

A female heir was unacceptable because there was no precedent for a woman’s ascent to the throne. The last time it had been attempted was when Henry I had appointed Empress Matilda, his only daughter, as heir. After Henry I’s death, Empress Matilda’s cousin, Stephen of Blois, preemptively claimed the throne. The result was a nineteen-year-long civil war known as The Anarchy. Henry VIII was keen to avoid a repeat of this disastrous period in English history.

Henry VIII fathered a son in 1519 with his mistress, Bessie Blount, so it became increasingly clear in his mind that Katherine was the reason for the failure to bring forth a male heir. English law would not permit the ascent of his illegitimate son, so a new wife was the solution. By 1526 Henry VIII had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn, the sister of a second mistress, Mary Boleyn. Thus began a long political and legal battle with Pope Clement VII, whom Henry VIII had begun to petition for an annulment of his marriage to Katherine so that he could marry Anne.

Pope Clement VII had refused to grant the annulment, in part because it was contrary to Catholic teaching. Henry VIII then tried a different strategy. In 1531, he banished Katherine to Ludlow Castle and refused to let her see their daughter Mary unless Katherine renounced their marriage. Katherine refused.

More decisive action became necessary in 1533 when Anne Boleyn became pregnant. Henry VIII coerced the archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, to marry him and Anne Boleyn, and also to annul his marriage to Katherine. The archbishop responded favorably to the coercion, which soon thereafter brought sentences of excommunication from Pope Clement VII upon the archbishop and Henry VIII.

Undeterred, Henry VIII did what any good dictator would do—he nationalized the churches. Property and wealth that had previously belonged to the Catholic Church in Rome now belonged to the Crown of England, through what is still known today as the Church of England.

In 1534, the Parliament of England passed the Act of Supremacy to legitimize Henry VIII’s confiscation of the churches. This Act specifically recognized Henry VIII as “the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England,” and that the king “shall have and enjoy all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity.”

To enforce the Act, the nobility in England were required to swear the Oath of Supremacy, recognizing the king as head of the church. As further enforcement, the parliament passed the Treasons Act, which made it treasonous—punishable by death—to disavow the Act of Supremacy.

Sir Thomas More—a lawyer, author, and statesmen who is credited with coining the word “utopia,” which was a name he gave to an ideal island nation in his book of the same title—would not recognize Henry VIII as the supreme head of the church and instead remained loyal to the pope. He refused to take the Oath of Supremacy, an act of defiance that sent him to the Tower of London where he lost his head on 6 July 1535. The Catholic Church repaid the loyalty four hundred years later in 1935 when Pope Pius XI canonized Sir Thomas More as a saint.

Anne Boleyn fared no better. Her pregnancy resulted in the birth of . . . you guessed it, a daughter, whom she named Elizabeth. A few other pregnancies ended in miscarriage. As a result, by 1536—only three years after her marriage to Henry VIII—Anne Boleyn found herself in the Tower of London on trumped-up charges of adultery and incest. She was separated from her head on 19 May 1536.

Katherine of Aragon spent the last five years of her life in forced seclusion and was never allowed to see her daughter, Mary. It was speculated that Katherine was poisoned at the behest of Henry VIII or Anne Boleyn, but later scholars hypothesized that she died from heart cancer. Katherine never renounced her marriage, and remained resolute to her death that she was the true wife of Henry VIII. She died at Kimbolton Castle in 1536.

Henry VIII’s third wife, Jane Seymour, finally begot the male heir to the throne that Henry VIII so desperately sought. This son, Prince Edward, became king at age nine, after Henry VIII’s death in 1547. However, Edward VI never ruled; he died from tuberculosis six years later at age fifteen.

In an odd twist of fate, the next crowned monarch was none other than Katherine’s daughter, Mary. Queen Mary I became the first queen of England, excluding the short and civil war-torn reign of Empress Matilda. Queen Mary I had remained a catholic and set about crushing the Protestant Reformations, which had been started primarily by the council of Edward VI. One of her first actions was to repeal the Act of Supremacy.

Queen Mary I also appeared to harbor ill-will toward those who had treated her mother wrongly. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer became one of her first victims when she had him burned at the stake. Archbishop Cranmer had annulled the marriage between Mary’s mother and father and subsequently presided over the marriage of Anne Boleyn. Queen Mary I’s reign lasted nearly five years before she died. In her attempt to reestablish the supremacy of the Catholic Church, she victimized the Protestants in what is known as the Marian Persecution. Many Protestants fled England, but nearly three hundred were burned at the stake. Queen Mary I earned the nickname “Bloody Mary.”

In a further twist of fate, the next monarch was Anne Boleyn’s daughter, Elizabeth, who was a devout Protestant. Queen Elizabeth I and her parliament went about legislating for Protestantism with the monarch as the titular head. She had the Act of Supremacy reinstated and also passed the Act of Uniformity, which made it a legal requirement to attend church every Sunday or face stiff fines. Every public official was required to recite the Oath of Supremacy as a precondition for holding their office.

What began as a trivial matter, Henry VIII’s desire to have a male heir, launched a chain of enormous events in the history of world affairs; the Catholic Church lost its possessions in England through the nationalization of its churches; England repeatedly swung back and forth between Catholicism and Protestantism in the course of one human generation; and the English and Scottish Reformations were unleashed, causing countless hundreds to lose their lives in the Tower of London or at the burning stakes as various people sought revenge or jockeyed for positions of power.

It is no small wonder then that on 6 September 1620—a mere seventeen years after Queen Elizabeth I’s death—one hundred two passengers boarded the Mayflower in Plymouth, England to begin a voyage in pursuit of religious freedom in a land that would eventually become known as the United States of America.

But the story of Henry VIII’s obsession with a male heir did not end when the pilgrims came ashore near present-day Plymouth, Massachusetts. An additional chapter was written one hundred seventy-one years later in December 1791, when the Founders of the United States of America incorporated this statement into the opening clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (Note: read the post “We The Government?” on this website). Yes indeed, on such trivial matters rests the fate of nations—including nations that were not yet born when Henry VIII embarked upon his personal crusade to ensure continuity to the House of Tudor.

Now you have a good understanding of the history behind the religious establishment clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Part II in this series, titled, “It’s An Establishment Clause, Stupid” will explain how the Federal Government is using this First Amendment to undermine our founding principles and impose a different kind of tyranny upon the citizens of this great country—a “creeping despotism” that seeks to undermine the very fabric of our society.

Read Part II, It’s An Establishment Clause, Stupid!

Test your knowledge of the United States Constitution by answering “true” or “false” to the following statements.

The constitution grants you the following rights:

- To freedom of religion - To freedom of speech - To a free press - To peaceably assemble

If you answered “true” to each of these statements, then congratulations, you have answered 100% [...]]]> Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

Test your knowledge of the United States Constitution by answering “true” or “false” to the following statements.

The constitution grants you the following rights:

- To freedom of religion
- To freedom of speech
- To a free press
- To peaceably assemble

If you answered “true” to each of these statements, then congratulations, you have answered 100% incorrectly! The United States Constitution grants you no such rights, as you shall soon discover.

Each of the original Thirteen Colonies had their own legislatures, many had their own currency, and all governed as sovereigns with their commonality being allegiance to the British monarchy. The Second Continental Congress realized the time had come to seek independence, and so it appointed a committee on 11 June 1776 to draft a declaration of independence. A second committee was appointed the next day to draft a constitution for a new government based on a confederation.

On 15 November 1777, the Second Continental Congress approved the drafted constitution and sent it to the states for ratification. The ratification process languished during the Revolutionary War, but the constitution was eventually ratified by all states near war’s end. This first constitution of the United States of America came into effect on 1 March 1781 and is known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. It created a loose confederation of sovereign republics (the states).

Having just freed themselves from the tyranny of the British Crown, the states were not eager to enslave themselves to a new national government with controlling powers. Accordingly, the Articles of Confederation granted very limited authority to the Congress of the Confederation, and almost no authority to enforce any of its decisions. As such, the Articles were flawed as an instrument of government, and they created divisions amongst several states that could not be resolved by the national government.

In February 1787, the Congress of the Confederation approved a plan to address the deficiencies in the Articles. The Congress called for a convention to be convened at the State House in Philadelphia on the second Monday of May for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. What became known by various names—such as the Grand Convention, the Philadelphia Convention, and the Constitutional Convention—began on Monday, 14 May 1787. Only a handful of state delegates had arrived by the 14^th, so the work of the convention could not proceed. It was not until 25 May 1787 that delegates from a quorum of seven states had arrived and the business of revising the Articles commenced. Rhode Island boycotted the convention because they did not want the Articles to be revised.

What began on 25 May and ended on 17 September 1787 was, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #1, an answer to the question of “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

What did the delegates do at this convention that elicited this observation from Hamilton? The delegates scrapped the Articles of Confederation and crafted an entirely new constitution based on a different form of government; a federal constitutional republic. This new constitution proposed the creation of a national government with specific and limited powers to protect the principles of the American Revolution, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Article I of the proposed constitution created the legislative branch; Article II created the executive branch; Article III created the judicial branch; Article IV outlined the relationships between the states and the states with the federal government; Article V described the process for amending the constitution; Article VI concerned national debts; and finally, Article VII described the process for ratifying the proposed constitution.

Noticeably absent from the drafted constitution was an individual Bill of Rights. The original Articles of Confederation contained no Bill of Rights because the form of the national government—a confederation—granted no governing authority over individuals; it simply codified the relationship amongst the states. Individual rights were codified within the constitution of each state.

George Mason was a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention and author of the document known as the Virginia Declaration of Rights. This document, written in 1776, proclaimed the natural rights of men and had been incorporated into the Virginia constitution. George Mason strongly felt that a Bill of Rights should be included in the proposed constitution because of the increased power granted to a new central government. So vehement was George Mason in this point of view that he was one of three delegates who refused to sign the final constitution because it did not contain an individual Bill of Rights.

The Constitutional Convention adjourned on 17 September 1787, and the work product, the United States Constitution, was sent to the individual states for ratification. Unlike the original Articles of Confederation, a unanimous consent by the states was not required for ratification. Only nine states were required to ratify the constitution for it to become effective, which occurred on 21 June 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth ratifying state.

George Mason’s arguments eventually held sway and the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the constitution became a precondition for Virginia’s ratification. James Madison, borrowing from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, introduced a proposed Bill of Rights on 8 June 1789. Finally, on 15 December 1791, more than four years after the Constitutional Convention adjourned, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, became effective when Virginia ratified the amendments.

Now back to the false statements in the quiz. The First Amendment specifically states the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You incorrectly applied the purpose of the United States Constitution if you answered “true” to the statements in the quiz. The United States Constitution grants you absolutely nothing. To the contrary, it is a grant of authority by “We the People,” through our state legislatures, for the federal government to exist. Further, it is a grant of authority by we the people for the Congress to perform only specific tasks on our collective behalf. The powers we granted to the Congress are enumerated in Article I, Section 8, of the constitution. Beyond these powers, Congress has no legal authority whatsoever to act on our collective behalf.

The Bill of Rights—and more specifically, the First Amendment—does not grant you the expressed freedoms in the quiz. These expressions of liberty were granted to you by your Creator, or as Thomas Jefferson stated: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The First Amendment and the constitution in general impose constraints on the federal government so that it does not infringe upon our unalienable rights. This, by definition, is the meaning of a constitutional republic: our elected representatives must govern according to constitutional law that limits the government’s power. Read the First Amendment again—it grants you nothing. Instead, we the people through this First Amendment have prohibited Congress from making law that would infringe upon these natural rights of liberty.

The politicians in Washington have turned the constitution upside down. They scheme to rule every aspect of our lives and refuse to be limited by the constitutional constraints we imposed upon them. Like the pilot who meticulously goes through the pre-flight checklist routine and only later realizes that the fuel tanks were half empty, the oath taken by the Washington politicians to defend and uphold the constitution has become nothing more than a meaningless ritual. And also like the mindless aviator, the politicians are piloting this country to eventual destruction.

Now, a majority of politicians reason that the constitution is flawed because it only grants “negative rights,” what the government cannot do to you. Instead, these politicians arrogantly lament the absence of “positive rights,” what the government must do for you. It is through the application of this faulty academic reasoning that politicians justify their routine violation of the public oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

We the people must recommit ourselves to an understanding of the principles and purpose of our founding documents if we are to save this federal constitutional republic. The preamble to our constitution starts with We the People. It is time for us to reassert that the only powers granted to the federal government are those we specifically enumerated. The government has no authority to grant itself any other powers or impose upon our unalienable rights, because the positive rights the federal government would like to force upon us are not rights at all, but the tyranny the Founders fought to drive out of this land. Had the Founders simply wished to replace British tyranny with their own, they would have started the preamble with We the Government.

On the proposed 1,000 plus page health care legislation . . .

“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.” James Madison

On the [...]]]> Mr. O’s Notable Quotable

On the proposed 1,000 plus page health care legislation . . .

“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.” James Madison

On the role of the Federal Government . . .

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” Thomas Jefferson

And the Resulting Debt . . .

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest dangers to be feared.” Thomas Jefferson

“Capitalism is evil.” Michael Moore, Capitalist Filmmaker, Multi-millionaire

That’s one point of view. Here’s another perspective:

“People who denounce the free market and voluntary exchange, and are for control and coercion, believe they have more intelligence and superior wisdom to the masses. What’s more, they believe they’ve been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom [...]]]> Mr. O’s Notable Quotable

“Capitalism is evil.” Michael Moore, Capitalist Filmmaker, Multi-millionaire

That’s one point of view. Here’s another perspective:

“People who denounce the free market and voluntary exchange, and are for control and coercion, believe they have more intelligence and superior wisdom to the masses. What’s more, they believe they’ve been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Of course, they have what they consider good reasons for doing so, but every tyrant that has ever existed has had what he believed were good reasons for restricting the liberty of others.” Walter E. Williams

Well said, Mr. Williams. Perhaps the many people who share Mr. Moore’s sentiments would like to show strength of conviction by renouncing their voluntary participation in our free market society and use of the numerous modern-day conveniences it produces. And after they have done so, they can donate the entirety of their evil capitalist net worth to charity as humble retribution.