Archive for the 'Liberty' Category

Aug 13 2010

Using todays technology from esign for historical documents

Published by admin under Liberty, Technology

Imagine what our founding fathers could have done with technology that is available today. Signing of our founding documents through esign one of the leaders in digital signatures to help capture and facilitate signings. With over 14K customers and 1 million users having the ability for Thomas Jefferson or John Hancock to sign and store their signatures safely and securely could have changed the course of history. Instead of needing everyone present to sign and pull them away from battle or various parts of the colony technology could have helped them amass the signatures and support they needed in a fraction of the time.
Historical Documents
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Mayflower Compact
- Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act

Speeches and Stories
- George Washington’s Farewell Address
- Not Yours To Give- David Crockett
- Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death- Patrick Henry
- Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought?- Patrick Henry

Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act
Patrick Henry, 30 May 1765

[Text of Virginia Resolves from Morison, Sources and Documents , pp. 17-18]

In 1765 the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which placed a tax on newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets and broadsides, all kinds of legal documents, insurance policies, ship’s papers, licenses, dice and playing cards. This led to widespread protest in the American colonies, and to the slogan, “No taxation without representation!”

The Virginia legislature did not actually adopt the fifth and sixth resolves, which were quite radical, but this document, including all six resolves, was published widely in newspapers across the colonies. Therefore, colonists were exposed to Henry’s radical ideas, and this document served as influential propaganda for the cause. Eight other colonies followed suit and had adopted similar resolves by the end of 1765.

Virginia Resolves. On May 29, 1765, the House of Burgesses of Virginia came to the following resolutions:

Whereas the honorable House of Commons in England have late drawn into question how far the general assembly of this colony has power to enact laws for laying taxes and imposing duties payable to the pope of this his majesty’s most ancient colony — For settling and ascertaining the same to all future times, the House of Burgesses of this present general assembly have come to the several following resolutions:

Resolved, That the first adventurers and settlers of this his majesty’s colony and dominion of Virginia brought with them and transmitted to their posterity and all others, his majesty’s subjects since inhabiting in this is majesty’s colony, all the privileges and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain.

Resolved, That by the two royal charters granted by King James the First, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all privileges of faithful, liege, and natural born subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England.

Resolved, That his majesty’s liege people of this his most ancient colony have enjoyed the right being thus governed by their own assembly, in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the same have never been forfeited or any other way yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the kind and people of Great Britain.

Resolved therefore, That the general assembly of the colony, together with his majesty or his substitute have in their representative capacity the only exclusive right and power to levy taxes and impositions on the inhabitants of this colony and that every attempt to vest such a power in any person or persons whatsoever other than the general assembly aforesaid is illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, and ahs a manifest tendency to destroy British, as well as American freedom.

The following resolves were not passed, though drawn up by the committee.They are inserted as a specimen of the first and early energies of the Old Dominion, as Virginia is often called.

Resolved, That his majesty’s liege people, the inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance whatsoever designed to impose any taxation whatsoever upon them, other than the laws and ordinances of the general assembly aforesaid.

Resolved, That any person who shall by speaking or writing maintain that any person or persons other than the general assembly of this colony have any right or power to impose or lay any taxation whatsoever on the people here shall be deemed an enemy to this his majesty’s colony.

Version published widely in newspapers, with additional resolution. There were also some variations from publication to publication:

Resolved, That the first adventurers and settlers of this His Majesty’s Colony and Dominion of Virginia brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity, and all other of His Majesty’s subjects since inhabiting this His Majesty’s said Colony, all the liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities, that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed, by the people of Great Britain.

Resolved, That by two royal charters, granted by King James the First, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens and natural subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England.

No responses yet

May 07 2010

Traveling to AC

Published by admin under Blogging, Liberty

I would like to go to Atlantic City one day. I hear it’s a great place to take a vacation to. Atlantic City was just recently in the news about an illegal gambling ring that was going on at the Borgata Hotel. It appears that some mobsters from the Philadelphia area might have been involved in some of the dealings there. I think mobsters, illegal gambling rings, and everything like that is associated with places like Atlantic City. I think its some of those things that make people want to travel to these destinations. Many travel management companies look to cities like Atlantic City and Las Vegas to book corporate travel in order to provide a good meeting space and entertainment for their customers.

I have never been to Las Vegas or Atlantic City and I hope I get the chance to go to both of them; sometime in my lifetime. I like to gamble some and taking a vacation that you have a chance for it to pay itself off, makes the most sense to me. We are going to spend money on our vacations to the beach or mountain resorts too, so might as well give us a chance to win that money back. I realize the odds are stacked against us, but the family vacation to the beach has lower odds than the casinos, if you’re looking to pay off your trip.

The location of Atlantic City is pretty good for a huge population to visit. You have the state of New Jersey and the folks in Pennsylvania that are located near all the casinos and hotels in Atlantic City. You also have New York City that is just a short drive away from Atlantic City. I think the location of Atlantic City is in a better place than building all those casinos in the dessert of Nevada. It should be interesting to see if this latest news gives the Borgata Hotel and Casino a jump in business or a decline. It makes me want to visit the casino and see what the atmosphere would be like, in a place like that.

One response so far

Apr 07 2010

Favorite foods for camping

Published by admin under Blogging, Liberty

Most camping enthusiasts will always have a favorite camp fire meal that they bring to prepare. It could be a chili recipe that has secret ingredients handed down from generation to generation. It may something fresh off the land like trout or salmon prepared in seasonings with some local produce that you can find at your camp site. The great thing about many of the state park camping sites throughout Washington is that you are near a stream or lake so that creating your special meal can be quite easy. Of course I have always been a big fan of the all American hot dog. For some reason a hot dog cooked over a camp fire tastes incredible. So we thought are there unusual ingredients that you would bring to a camping trip that would go well with a hot dog.

What do you like on your hot dog?

*Catsup

*Mustard

*Slaw

*Chili

*Relish

*Onions

These are the most common things we top our dogs off with. I like a good beefy hotdog cooked on the grill. I don’t always have the time to cook them on the grill but a nice grilled dog is tasty. I can eat a grilled hotdog plain and no other items needed. If I was creating my perfect hotdog, I would like homemade chili, mustard, and onions on mine. I think this is the best combination for me. Does this sound like a hotdog you could eat too?

What are your favorite hotdog toppings? Is there any ingredient that most people put on their hotdogs but you never would? Let me know your favorite things to put on a hotdog and any special tips for adding a new topping to hotdogs. This is the easiest food to cook while camping and if you go camping, you can’t forget to bring the hotdogs and hotdog buns!

No responses yet

Mar 29 2010

Articles

Published by admin under Liberty

1. Moore, Alan. V for Vendetta. Vertigo Comics, 1988.

Back to top

Who Was Thaddeus Kosciusko?
R. Abraham Edwards

“The freedom and happiness of man…
[are] the sole objects of all legitimate government.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1810

Who was Thaddeus Kosciusko? In 1776 the young Kosciucko left Poland to join the American colonists in their fight against Great Britain, receiving a commission as officer of engineers. He was the first foreign officer to receive a commission in Washington’s army, and after the war he was granted 500 acres in Ohio near the Scioto River where the city of Columbus now stands. He was a man who knew far better than many today the need for political freedom, the importance of equality, the need for education, and the necessity of economic independence. After the war, Kosciusko returned to Poland, where he organized the Polish army in an unsuccessful revolt against the combined forces of Russia and Prussia. He died in Switzerland, banished from Poland, a man whom Jefferson once called “the purest son of Liberty”.1.

Of the four basic rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life seems the most rudimentary. In fact, a cursory reading of the document may cause one to think that the “right to life” is implicit; obviously, if one is in a position to be reading the Declaration of Independence, they have already been granted the “right to life”. It may be necessary to suggest, then, that the inalienable right to ‘life’ means more than the right to “be alive”. Existence is assumed. What then, is the meaning of the phrase the “right to life” and what connection does it have to the rights of liberty and happiness?

The right to life refers to far more than the right ‘not to be killed’. Nor does it refer to the right to eke out a miserable existence in anticipation of your ultimate and unavoidable demise. Living encompasses all things that your liberty allows you, all those activities that you pursue because of your liberty, including the free exercise of your mental faculties.

The phrase ‘right to life’ is one that has been adopted by the Pro-Life movement in their fight against abortion, and while it is aptly chosen, I do not believe that Jefferson had in mind the right to exist when he penned the words. Rather, I would suggest that life has a far richer definition, and that it is intricately tied with the other inalienable rights. Writing in 1774, Jefferson suggested that, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.” One’s life and liberty go hand in hand. As liberty is threatened or removed, life is likewise left devoid of meaning. Jefferson, in a letter dated 1790, wrote that, “The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.” In other words, the right to life is directly tied to the means necessary for its use, namely, our liberty. We should view any encroachment on our liberty as an encroachment on our very lives. Locke, writing in his Second Treatise of Government in 1690 made it very clear that our liberties and lives are bound up together.

“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one….”

Just as I mentioned in a previous article that 2. in a sense, we are our rights, so likewise our liberties are simply the fullest and most natural extension of our lives. Recall the ringing words of Patrick Henry- the only two reasonable states for a man are liberty or death.

Furthermore, the natural desire of all men since our forefather Adam is to be free from any higher form of earthly power. The idea of placing oneself under the will or legislative authority of other men goes against our inherent inclinations. At the same time, our very nature relishes opportunities of placing ourselves in a position of power above the rest of society. We bind ourselves together under standing rules so that no man is subject to the “inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.” 2.Sam Adams, in his essay “Rights of the Colonists as Men”, pointed out that “. . . all men have a right to remain in their natural state as long as they please, entering into society by voluntary consent. Every natural right, not expressly given up… remains. All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.” Any government that fails to meet this standard is not simply depriving the citizenry of their liberties. It is depriving them of their very lives.

Finally, what does the right to life mean for the person who lives in impoverished circumstances, who has not the freedom to enjoy the good things of our culture due to economic constraints, social position, perceived discrimination, lack of proper education, or poor health? Is not the government thus required to step in and provide whatever is necessary for these people to experience their ‘right to life’ in the same way as the average citizen? Could the argument not be made for the need of governmental social services if these things would lead to a greater number of men and women experiencing lives of a higher quality? Since the right to life refers as much to the quality of life as to the fact of existence, do not more liberal social reforms seem warranted?

The voice of reason, however, cries out in protest. The flaw in the previous argument is that it looks at basic human rights, as do many social liberals today, from a completely backward angle. The inalienable human rights are not selective grants of governmental benevolence, but are inherent properties of each human being. We need to recognize these principles as essential parts of man, not gifts of the state. Unfortunately, many people in the world today view their liberties as precisely that, a gift of the state. Thus, it is logical for such a person to complain that the government has ineffectively provided for his right to life and happiness, due to the socioeconomic inequalities that exists in our culture.

This type of thinking is usually obvious, and typically is to be found when the levels of social inequality are particularly noticeable. After the resent destruction of New Orleans, for example, it was this kind of erroneous thought that blamed the government for not providing adequate financial assistance. It is often this kind of thinking that is behind cries of racism and discrimination. Anyone who believes the government exists in order to provide them with worldly comforts is certain to experience continual disappointment.

Thaddeus Kosciusko understood that life and liberty flow through the same veins. A man who risks his life to secure liberty for another is rare indeed. The sad irony of his life lies in the fact that he was successful in a foreign land, and failed in his own. May each of us have the same passion for securing today our rights to liberty…and life.

1. Adapted from “The Unusual Story of Thaddeus Kosciusko” Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences. Volume 32, No. 1 – Spring 1986.
2. John Locke, Second Treatise on Government 1690

Back to top

American Liberty
Jonathan D. Detwiler

Since the terrorist attacks in the fall of 2001, one primary object has been on the agenda of the executive branch- national security. Without much dialog on principles of liberty, the Patriot Acts, the espionage of private citizens, and preemptive war measures on the nation of Iraq have been necessitated as legitimate means to a impression of “national security”. How do these actions protect liberty? Although this essay will not seek to address these current issues specifically, before we can answer such a question we must first establish a definition of liberty.

To begin, I would title our definition as ‘American liberty’. The reason I do this is that there are other definable forms of liberty, not including the American form of liberty as established in 1776. The history and development of American liberty is a very long and involved study of philosophy and political thought spanning hundreds of years in Europe and America. Thus, in the context we find ourselves, I shall reduce it to two sources from which it derived significant influence: the English Common Law System and the Protestant Reformation

Even in these two sources, our study must be brief. The English Common Law system developed as the legal opinions of private judges in ‘common law’. These judgments were not always enforceable by the local magistrate, the convicted having the option to live outside of the law- an outlaw. Outlaws of course enjoyed none of the benefits of the law, even their life not being protected. The common law system saw its source as primarily being the laws manifest in nature and confirmed in the laws and principals found in the Christian Bible. Thus, as it was being developed judgments could not go against these precedents, although they could overthrow un-logical or contrary precedent. In 1765, Sir William Blackstone published a four-volume, Commentary on the Laws of England, which examines the common law system developed in England. These volumes became the foundation for the study of law and government in the founding period of America. As an example of his work, here is his definition of natural law: “This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, and all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately from this original.” 1

The protestant reformation helped to establish the growth of the common law. This is due to the fact that the reformation established the source of law as coming from the God of scriptures, this law consisting of fixed unchanging principles. The reformation also stressed that all individuals are equally responsible before the law of God, and mans law subsequently. This went against the philosophy that government, be it church or state, was above the law and could do as it pleased. Because of this understanding of the law, the reformation established the right to resistance of laws or governments that went against the higher principals and source of law. Government was a necessary function in society, but only to punish and restrain evildoers and lawbreakers.

Now let us turn and look at the historical implementation of the principles found in American liberty in the founding of America. In 1620, English Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower wrote the Mayflower Compact, which illustrates the right of the people to establish a government to serve liberty. They wrote “…[we] covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony…” 2

The Declaration of Independence of 1776 seeks authority for its law system as the laws of nature and natures god. It also sites the right of the people to establish government. “…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…to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” 3 The Declaration makes use of the argument that governments that does not serve the purpose of equality before the law for all men can and should be overthrown to establish a government that accomplishes this.

Now that we have finished our introductory study of the establishment of American liberty in the United States, can we define it? Yes, but I believe that this definition can first be further articulated by studying the writings of the U.S. Constitution of 1787. This constitution created by the people of the federated states sought to provide representative government established on the rule of law. The government they established incorporated aspects of all three forms of government: the monarchical principle- executive branch; the aristocratical principle- judicial branch; and the democratical principle- legislative branch. As stated above, it was a federation of states joined together by common goals and joint protection. The Constitution was delegative, stating only the duties each member of the government was required to fulfill. It also included a bill of rights, which further defined another aspect of American liberty. We can see how these rights sought to protect the three principles of liberty:

Protection of Life: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Nor be a witness against himself, or be tried twice for the same crime. 4 He was innocent until proven guilty, had the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 5 The right to a speedy and public trial with witnesses and counsel for defense, a jury of his peers, and according to the rules of common law. 6 The private ownership of military equipment for use in defense. 7

Protection of Liberty: Congress shall not establish a national form of religious exercise, freedom of speech, of the press and the right to assemble. 8

Protection of Property: The ability to copyright writing discoveries and ideas in science and the useful arts. 9 Soldiers shall not be quartered in any house. 10 The right against unlawful searches or seizures, private property taken only through due process and with just compensation. 11

Now I think our definition is complete. What is it that makes American liberty so unique? It is defined fully defined as follows:

American Liberty- 1. The belief that the source of liberty is found in law and that both acquire their authority in the God of scripture and the testimony of the laws of nature. This rule of law compels men to form governments to protect life, liberty and property. Governments that become destructive to these principals can be re-established to protect law and liberty. 2. The protection of life, liberty and property includes the following: right to life except through forfeiture through due process of law; innocence until proven guilty through a jury trial of ones peers; the right to private ownership of military equipment; freedom of religion, speech, the press and peaceable assembly; private ownership of property free from searches or seizures, without due process and just compensation.

Do you see now how unique and powerful American liberty is? These are the principles that nurtured and fed the growth and birth of liberty. American liberty did not come out of a vacuum. And unfortunately it does not continue indefinitely. Patrick Henry was an ardent believer in American liberty. You may remember the speech that he gave in 1776, in which he stated “give me liberty or give me death!” Freedom and liberty was so important to Patrick Henry that he was willing to face death than submit to chains of submission and slavery. And he and others sacrificed their all to establish liberty in America. Later in the ratification debates for the proposed constitution he again stressed the importance of protecting liberty by saying “shall liberty or empire be sought?” What did he mean? Simply, some of the tendencies of the proposed constitution leaned towards the establishment of an empire at the expense of liberty. It was because of this and his insistence that the Bill of Rights was added as amendments in 1789. This brings us back to the questions I raised in the beginning of this article. With our definition of American liberty we need to evaluate the tendencies and actual operations of our current government compared to the principles of American liberty. Do we truly live in a country based on American Liberty or the American Empire?

1. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1 pp. 41
2. Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, pp. 75-76
3. Declaration of Independence of 1776
4. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment V
5. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment VI & VII
6. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Article I, Section VIV
7. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment II
8. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment I
9. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Article I, Section VIII
10. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment III
11. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment IV

Back to top

More on Locke and the Logical
Conclusion of His Philosophy
Stephen Valentine Hodos

I was recently reading a copy of Friedrich A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom at a local coffee shop when I was approached by a stranger with an opinion. The man began by asking me how it was that I became familiar with Hayek. If you are not familiar with Friedrich Hayek, he was an economist of the 20th Century whose most popular work The Road to Serfdom was published just prior to the end of World War II. In The Road to Serfdom Hayek outlines the doom that awaits any nation which heads down the slippery slope of socialism. Back to the coffee shop. When I told the inquiring gentleman that I am a Libertarian he told me that I am “halfway there.” When I asked him what he meant by this statement he did not hesitate to explain. He told me why the war in Iraq is necessary to counteract the growing threat of terrorism that is a result of bourgeoning hostilities amongst middle-eastern Muslims. He went on to explain to me that some social programs will always be necessary to counteract poverty at home. While the conversation was cut short, I am sure that there are more issues at which my philosophy is only “halfway there” according to his self-proclaimed conservative ideology.

The question that begs to be asked is can we merge a democratic philosophy of government that is based upon the right to property with modern socialistic ideals without being inconsistent? The answer is no, we cannot. Do such inconsistencies have consequences? History will tell. If Hayek was right and justice prevails then we have sacrificed every bit of liberty that our government was intended to preserve for such concepts as social equity for the poor and misguided concerns for national safety. But let me ask another question: how is it that a “conservative” today could possibly come to such illogical conclusions? Before I answer this question, how about a very short lesson in political theory.

Prior to the American Revolution and at the outset of the birth of capitalism two men wrote two books in which two very different philosophies of government were outlined. The first was entitled Two Treatises of Government and was written (originally anonymously) by John Locke in 1689. The second, The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right was published in 1762 by author Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Locke, in his Second Treatise, outlines for us why it is that private property actually does exist in the first place and then goes on to conclude that the role of government is to protect that property. He states that “”the Commonwealth comes by a Power to set down, what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed by the members of that Society”and all this for the preservation of the property of the members of that Society, as far as is possible.” 1 I am aware that this short excerpt does not provide for a full account of Locke’s philosophy. Nevertheless, the point is that Locke asserted that governments exist to protect the property of the governed. Now let us look at Rousseau’s position.

In The Social Contract Rousseau states that a democratic system presupposes certain things concerning how society should be ordered. He posits that democracy requires a large measure of equality in rank and fortune, without which equality of rights and authority cannot long subsist” and goes on to state that little or no luxury is necessary for the citizens of a democratic society because, according to Rousseau it corrupts at once the rich and poor, the rich by possession and the poor by covetousness.” Rousseau concludes his chapter on Democracy by stating “Were there a people of gods their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.” 2 While Rousseau tends to be unclear as to how he defines his terms I will assume that he would have considered the early American form of government for the people, by the people” to be a democratic one.

From such a brief account of the positions of both philosophers, which one sounds more in line with my friend at the coffee shop?

The point is that Locke’s philosophy of government being essentially libertarian is very opposed to any idea that government might restrict the property rights of its citizens seeing as it is the duty of government to protect that property. Contrary to this, Rousseau’s philosophy being essentially socialistic sees “equality in rank and fortune” as a necessary precondition to a democratic form of government. Rousseau is completely in line with modern socialistic ideology as well as both mainstream conservatism and liberalism wherein they all agree that the less fortunate in society have a right to some minimum amount of property guaranteed to them at the expense of the more fortunate. Such thinking is entirely problematic. Here is why. If the very government which is entrusted with preserving the property of its citizens is allowed to do with that property as it pleases and as it sees fit, whether it is for the “general welfare” or not makes no difference, it is no longer the property of the individual which the government is protecting it is the property of the state. What then is the property of the state? Anything and everything that it can get its hands on. From a ludicrous percentage of your paycheck, to your home, to your life!

Unfortunately, it is rarely considered to be extreme to want to merge such socialistic principles as were espoused by the self-professed conservative who I met at the coffee shop with such Libertarian principles as Hayek would have us uphold. Even more unfortunate is the fact that it is the person who is consistent in recognizing the logical consequences of such thinking who is considered to be extreme, if not old-fashioned. It is in an attempt to synthesize these two philosophies of government that a conservative, like the man I met at the coffee shop, is able to come to the conclusions that he holds to.

The purpose of this article is not to address my problems with any specific set of issues that currently comprise the platform of either of the socialistic parties running our country. Neither is my point to single out a well-intentioned stranger who had the mind to start a conversation. My point is to recognize the fact that unless we learn to distinguish between a philosophy of liberty and a philosophy of socialism, a Lockean philosophy of government and a Rousseauean one, all the good intentions in the world will not save our country from the impending doom that befalls those who accept the tenet that social equity comes before liberty.

1. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government; Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 2004; p.324.
2. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses; Everyman Press, 1993; p.240.

Back to top

On Property
R. Abraham Edwards

A thorough study of the political ideas surrounding private property being impossible under the constraints of time (and perhaps the reader’s patience), let it suffice us to make a logical examination of certain Lockean and Jeffersonian phrases which have shaped our present government and society.

John Locke, writing in his Second Treatise on Civil Government asserted that government exists because of property. Governments serve to protect property, and if I possess no property, then I have no need of a state. I do not require or benefit from prisons, police, armies, judges, rulers, or any of the machinery of government. The question is whether I have right to property.

If I do indeed have a right to property, then government becomes legitimate because those who own property certainly have a right to protect it. A legitimate government is one in which the governors work for the good of the governed, and not their own good. The people give their consent to be governed in the hope that it will result in justice throughout society. Locke then asserted that the government could be overthrown if and when the governor “makes not the law, but his will the rule, and his commands are not directed at the properties of his people, but to satisfaction of his own ambitions, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”

Clearly, if a right to property exists, then property owners have a right to revolution. what, however, would we say about those who own no property? Have they no recourse if their rights are abridged? The American revolutionists certainly fought to protect the rights of property owners, but what of those who owned no property?

Perhaps it was in response to this dilemma (and the dilemma raised when ‘property’ comes to include other human beings) that Jefferson chose the term “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s wording seems more generous, but raises the question: Did Jefferson disagree with Locke’s thesis that there is an inalienable right to property? There are many today who own no property- are we to say that those people have no right to legitimate government? Perhaps there is a different way of understanding property that goes beyond houses, farms, and fields.

James Madison, in an essay dated 1792, defined property as “the dominion a man exercises over the things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.” this, then, is the normal way in which we think of property: my car, my house, my boat, my tractor, etc. Madison, however, was far from finished, and he continued his definition in a way that I believe is quite radical.

“In its larger and more just meaning,” Madison continues, “property embraces everything to which a man might attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the same advantage. A man has property in the safety and liberty of his person, in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may equally be said to have a property in his rights.”

In short, Madison was saying that a man possesses property in the form of his opinions, in his religious beliefs, and in his liberty. each man, then, is a property owner, and each of us must needs determine of our government is the legitimate entity we have a right to.

“Government,” Madison declared, “is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well as that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government that alone is a just government which impartially secures to each man whatever is his own.”

The word “property” comes to us from the French word ‘propre’, which means “self”. our rights are inseparable from ourselves. In a sense we are our rights- they are our highest form of property. In this day and age we hear much about ‘rights’, and given the passion of some groups toward what they see as the usurpation’s of their rights, it may serve us well to ask a few probing questions in order to gauge the efficacy of our government at protecting our rights, our property:

Is the war in the Middle East helping to protect you property? Does the abortion trade in this country help to protect your property? Does the so-called ‘wall of separation’ between church and state serve to protect your property? Does a ban on smoking in public places serve to protect your property? Does banning Christian religious expression serve to protect your property? Does outlawing firearms serve to protect your property? Does the ‘No Child Left Behind act, or the Federal Board of Education serve to protect your property? Does the Patriotic Act serve to protect your property? Remember that the role of government is to protect property. Is it possible that it has strayed from that goal? Is our current government “impartially securing to every man whatever is his own?”

If the answer to the above question is negative, then we must take the logical next step and agree with Locke that our elected officials are not providing us with legitimate government and may be legitimately overthrown. I write this not to endorse revolt, per se, if my words seem radical to you, it is only a sign of how far our society has fallen the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Madison wrote that it was “imperative for the United States that it equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights.”

Tyranny exists. All fine words wither before a man such as Mao Zedong, who claimed, “power is in he muzzle of a gun.” Tyranny exists in those nations that have censored Madison’s revolutionary doctrine from their people, shielding them from the knowledge that it works in practice. While many in this once great nation remain passively apathetic to the usurpation of their rights, we should learn a real lesson from the young people of China and other nations who have shown that they are willing to fight and die for their property rights. If we are unwilling to do the same, tyranny will soon become very real to us, and the legitimacy of government will be purely academic.

Back to top

Is Liberty Unlimited?
Jonathan D. Detwiler

What exactly is Liberty? Can liberty be unlimited or is it limited? A look at the dictionary can help us answer these questions. One definition I found states that liberty is, “the state of being exempt from the domination of others or from restricting circumstances.” This doesn’t sound very good, are you free from the domination of others, or restricting circumstances? You name it; domination coming from others, a spouse, employer, parents, tax collectors, the government- the list goes on. And restricting circumstances, again, you can only spend as much as you make. Having to work itself is a restriction on your liberty. So you must admit that you do not experience unlimited liberty.

What if we could experience unlimited liberty? If you had unlimited liberty would this be a good thing? If you were a law unto yourself who would say that you couldn’t steal for an income, kill at will, whatever you wanted. This may sound okay at first, but what if everybody had this freedom? You would not be safe. True liberty would be destroyed and the result would be chaotic anarchy. Rousas J. Rushdoony says that “Man’s total liberty is always anarchy, and anarchy is the death of both law and liberty. Unless all men’s liberty is limited by law, no liberty is possible for any man.”

So when the founders talked about liberty and freedom what did they mean? In the writings of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon in their book, Cato’s Letters they explained the unalienable right of liberty as:

“All men are born free; Liberty is a gift which they receive from God; nor can they alienate the same by Consent, though possibly they may forfeit it by crimes”
The right of the Magistrate arises only from the right of private men to defend themselves, to repel injuries, and to punish those who commit them; That right being conveyed by the society top their public representative, he can execute the same no further than the benefit of security of that society requires that he should. When he exceeds his commission, his acts are extra-judicial as are those of any private officer usurping an unlawful authority, that is, they are void”"

They say “Liberty” is the “power which every man has over his own actions, and his rights to enjoy the fruit of his labor, art and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any members, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man’s honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole Lord and Arbiter of his own private actions and property.”

What Trenchard and Gordon are trying to point out here is that liberty is limited. Albeit they argue these limits are limited. Man is born free. Liberty is a gift, a right they cannot forfeit except through committing of crimes. They also point out that living in a society under government does not alter the right to liberty.
“The entering into political society is so far from a departure from his natural rights, that to preserve it was the sole reason why men do so; and mutual protection and assistance is the only reasonable purposes of all reasonable societies.”

One of the basic premises of the American system of liberty is that man’s liberty is under law. The purpose of the founding of the United States and for much of its history the goal of its justice system, has been to further liberty by law. If liberty is indeed under law, the it requires careful and conscientious legislation to maintain the social structure that promotes liberty best. The founders thought this could be accomplished by making the interests of those who govern and the governed the same. All parties with a vested interest in the preservation of liberty in the society would assemble and vote on it. This is the principle of representative government. The representative must live under the laws that they pass. Government must be limited so as to not encroach upon the liberty of man.

The restoration of true liberty means the restoration of true law. It is completely illogical and dangerous to think that freedom means the escape from law.

Back to top

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No responses yet

Feb 26 2010

Truth or conspiracy

Published by admin under Liberty, Technology

Just ask any detective solving a crime or mystery about what evidence they would most like to have in solving a dilemma. They won’t say fingerprints, DNA, eye-witnesses, or things like this; that normally help them to solve cases. The most intelligent ones would say video evidence or some type of recorded proof that could not be disputed. After all, if you have the guy robbing the bank on film, this is much easier to prove to a jury than trying to explain the whole DNA thing to average people. In the case of the moon landing, we do have that video evidence or at least some of it we do. There was a lot of brain power that went into coming up with this possible theory and as usual people wanting to challenge the evidence that they have in front of them. There are lots of items missing from videos, samples collected on the moon, and other things that have disappeared over time. It is hard to believe that we could lose or destroy some of these things, considering just how big the moon landing was. Some video evidence of the moon landing has actually been recorded over by NASA; so they could use the same film to record other things.

People ultimately will believe what they want to believe and can always make the evidence slant to their favor or beliefs. The moon landing hoaxes and all the people that have tried to prove the moon landings didn’t exist have met stiff competition. Tons of theories exist with the video evidence and people have gone through great lengths to prove each side wrong in the debate of the moon landing. Even a popular show called “MythBusters” broke it all down and tried to prove the conspiracy theories wrong. The video debates on both sides is very interesting and some of the theories that exist outside of the video evidence is intriguing too. For example, all the deaths that have occurred to people related with the Apollo missions and their untimely deaths. It does make the mind wonder with all the literature and TV programs that is out there asking the question: Did We Really Go To the Moon?

No responses yet

Jan 01 2010

Historical Documents

Published by admin under Liberty

Resolved, That the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristick of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.

Resolved, That His Majesty’s liege people of this his most ancient and loyal Colony have without interruption enjoyed the inestimable right of being governed by such laws, respecting their internal polity and taxation, as are derived from their own consent, with the approbation of their sovereign, or his substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the kings and people of Great Britain.

Resolved therefore, That the General Assembly of this Colony have the only and sole exclusive right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this Colony, and that every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatsoever other than the General Assembly aforesaid has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom.

Resolved, That His Majesty’s liege people, the inhabitants of this Colony are not bound to yield obediance to any law or ordinance whatever, designed to impose any taxation whatsoever upon them other than the laws or ordinances of the General Assembly aforesaid.

Resolved, That any person who shall, by speaking or writing, assert or maintain that any person or persons other than the General Assembly of this Colony, have any right or power to impose or lay any taxation on the people here, shall be deemed an enemy to His Majesty’s Colony.

The above “Virginia Resolves” should not be confused with another set, drafted by George Mason, introduced by George Washington, and adopted unanimously by the Virginia House of Burgesses on May 16, 1769, as a protest to the 1767 Townshend Acts, enacted by the British Parliament after the repeal of the 1765 Stamp Act in 1766, which had been the target of the 1765 “Virginia Resolves” above. In February, 1768, Samuel Adams had drawn up and issued the Circular Letter, which reported that the Massachusetts General Court had denounced the Townshend Acts in violation of the principle of no taxation without representation , reasserted that the colonies were not represented adequately in the British Parliament, and attacked the Crown’s attempt to make colonial governors and judges independent from the people. The Virginia Resolves of 1769 again recognized only the right of the Virginia governor and legislature to tax Virginians, condemned the British government for censuring the Circular Letters, and condemned Parliament’s notion that dissidents be taken to England for trial.

Another set sometimes called “Virginia Resolves” were adopted Oct. 22, 1774, by the First Continental Congress, to create a ” Non-Importation Association “, essentially a boycott of trade with Britain.

Finally, the name “Virginia Resolves” has also often been used to refer to the ” Virginia Resolution of 1798 “, authored by James Madison, which together with the “Kentucky Resolutions of 1798″, authored by Thomas Jefferson, protested the Alien and Seditions Acts of 1798, and called for state laws to obstruct their enforcement, which came to be called state “nullification” of union laws, and established the “Doctrine of ‘98″ for interpretation of the Constitution which became the platform of the Democratic Republican Party that elected Jefferson to the presidency in 1800, which came to be called the “Revolution of 1800″, and ushered in the Jeffersonian Era that lasted through 1824.

Back to top

George Washington’s Farewell Address 1796

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, 1793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this con duct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.
Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.

Back to top

Not Yours to Give
David Crockett

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 emblance 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 ernest 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.”

Back to top

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Patrick Henry March 23, 1775.

This famous speech was given by the later governor of the state of Virginia, a member of the First Continental Congress, and was delivered at Richmond’s historic St. John’s Church. It was a fiery call to arms against British oppression and a cry for the preservation of Liberty at all costs, even death. It caused an immediate and rousing reaction and subsequently became one of the great clarion cries for freedom that circulated throughout the colonies.

NO man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Back to top
The Mayflower Compact

The Mayflower Compact was drafted and signed on board the Mayflower as that ship approached Cape Cod on November 11, 1620. The Compact is regarded as one of the most important documents in the history of American Liberty. It proves the determination of the small group of English Separatist Christians to live under the rule of law, based on the consent of the people and to set up their own civil government. The original parchment has long since disappeared. The current text was first first printed in London in 1622 in a pamphlet generally known as “Mourts Relation” which contained extracts from the fledgling colony’s journals and histories. In an oration delivered in 1802 John Quincy Adams declared that it was “perhaps the only instance, in human history, of that positive, original social compact, which speculative philosphers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government.” Thus, the pilgrim fathers had anticipated the covenantal social contract seventy years before John Locke and 140 years before Jean Jacques Rousseau.

IN the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord King James by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, Ireland King, defender of the faith etceteras.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony: unto which we promise all due submission and obediance.

In witness wherof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the year the reign of our soverign Lord King James of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Dominie, 1620.

Back to top

The Declaration of Independence of 1776

WHEN in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers ‘from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most ‘likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of governments. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative Houses repeatedly for opposing with manly firmness his invasion on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government:
For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barba?rous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these suppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the cir?cumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliance, establish com?merce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Back to top

Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought?
Patrick Henry, 1788

This document was excerpted from a speech made on June 5, 1788 to the Virginia Convention which was called to ratify the Constitution of the United States of 1787. Mr. Henry revered liberty so highly that he was outspoken against the ratification of the Constitution of 1787! In this speech he lists his reasons for believing that the proposed constitution would lead toward a new form of American imperialism. Some of his predictions have surfaced through the passing of our history, and others are still becoming apparent today. We must study the Constitution and the principles of Liberty just as Patrick Henry did in his day if we are to better understand the principles that justified his position.

THIS, sir, is the language of democracy–that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen standing on this ground are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I can not help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone for ever.
We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practised in the House of Commons of England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body can not continue oppressions on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of the one-tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited–an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper; all power will be in their own possession. You can not force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.
The honorable gentleman then went on to the figure we make with foreign nations; the contemptible one we make in France and Holland, which, according to the substance of the notes, he attributes to the present feeble government. An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are contemptible people; the time has been when we were thought otherwise. Under the same despised government we commanded the respect of all Europe; wherefore are we now reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid government, a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government–for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different; liberty, sir, was then the primary object.
We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, “we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble.” Would this constitute happiness or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects.
Consider our situation, sir; go to the poor man and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society; you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce? They are out of sight of the common people; they can not foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people; it is for them I fear the adoption of this system. I fear I tire the patience of the committee, but I beg to be indulged with a few more observations.
When I thus profess myself an advocate for the liberty of the people, I shall be told I am a designing man, that I am to be a great man, that I am to be a demagog; and many similar illiberal insinuations will be thrown out; but, sir, conscious rectitude outweighs those things with me. I see great jeopardy in this new government. I see none from our present one. I hope some gentleman or other will bring forth, in full array, those dangers, if there be any, that we may see and touch them. I have said that I thought this a consolidated government; I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this government? Suppose it should prove oppressive, how can it be altered? Our Bill of Rights declares that “a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”
The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans they will preserve and hand down to their latest posterity the transactions of the present times; and tho I confess my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty, for I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for a scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally–that is, after non-compliance with requisitions. I will do more, sir, and what I hope will convince the most skeptical man that I am a lover of the American Union; that, in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the control of our customhouses and the whole regulation of trade shall be given to Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing and furnished the last soldier.
Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; even that they should strike us out of the Union and take away from us all federal privileges till we comply with federal requisitions; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people. Were all the States, more terrible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir, the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this and you will find this State more particularly interested to support American liberty and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation. The honorable gentleman has told us that these powers given to Congress are accompanied by a judiciary which will correct all. On examination you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed, your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress.
This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy, and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your president may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed to what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue for ever unchangeably this government, altho horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.
If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design, and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely–and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion–have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the president, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I can not with patience think of this idea. If ever he violate the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of the army to carry everything before him, or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of everything and being ignominiously tried and punished powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your president! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch; your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

Back to top

No responses yet

Nov 26 2009

Playing pool in your new basement

Published by admin under Liberty, Marketing

We have friends that have a pool table in their basement and it is amazing how it brings people together and somehow brings out the pool shark in all of us. It never fails that by the end of the night there is some sort of wager on the table on who can beat who. So plan a family game night and invest time with your family as the rewards that you will gain will not be able to be measured in dollars. Having a game table in your basement is a great investment if you are planning on adding to your current setup or finishing your basement all together. Make sure that you take precautions to avoid moisture issues which can ruin your pool table and carpet. While you can find several companies that will repair wet basements it is best to be proactive and make sure that there are no leaks prior to any major investment in your game room in the basement.
There are many types of pool tables to choose from that range from 7′ to 9′ foot table with different looks and features. You can choose from a variety of different colored felts to match your entertainment room or decor. Being a true WSU cougars fan we will be looking to get a the crimson felt table with nice solid maple finish.  In the past you could only find a quality pool table through select dealers, they help to provide a network of high end pool tables that they can help locate from across the country.

No responses yet

Nov 25 2009

Choosing the right breed

Published by admin under Blogging, Liberty

Dogs may be the secret to happiness for many people. Owners will walk their dogs daily whether they feel like it or not, so you have a kind of forced exercise. Dogs can also sense when you are not feeling well, or unhappy and will lay by your side to comfort you. It is amazing how much they can sense from their owner. It is equally important that your pet be in good health and spirits as well. Some research has shown that well rested pets can be happier and more playful with their owners.

breedsThe right dog breed can make a huge difference depending on your family and size of your home and yard. You see so many full blooded dogs these days, and they will have papers with them. I assume there is money to be made for the dog breeders. Do dog breeders start the business to make money? Or do they just have a love for dogs? I assume it’s a little of both. I love having dogs, but I currently don’t have one. I know that there are ongoing expenses like pet supplies that must be accounted for when buying a dog.I like to let them run loose in the yard. I don’t like pinning up an animal or leaving them on a chain. Keeping a pet indoors for me, is just not imaginable. I just don’t feel that you can keep your house too clean, with pet odors and hairs that come with them. I know most full blooded breeds you can usually buy for around 500 dollars. I guess depending on how rare the breed is. I know some will fetch 1000’s of dollars, but cause they are not many of them. I assume with the drive to make money, the rare won’t be so rare anymore, as people in the business will want to make as much as possible.

No responses yet

Nov 23 2009

Keeping security abroad

Published by admin under Blogging, Liberty

To highlight his point we were just reading an article about the South Korean police force having to find a more secure way to identify their 100,000 officers that could not be easily duplicated. They went to a registered hologram technology that is next to impossible to copy and is encoded specifically for their police force. They decided to print the cards internally to prevent any counterfeiting of ID badges. Many of the outfits that do this use the HP Laserjet print cartridge printers in order to reduce duplication and have a longer lasting image that can be scanned and worn in the field. Since the newly registered can’t be copied or reproduced by conventional printers or scanners this gave them a high level of security. They also included a color photo of the officer and essential information for the id card holders.

Because of the cost savings that they would realize they installed printers centrally and throughout the 22 provinces to be able to print on demand and then have them networked together so that a central database could be used and monitored. The South Korean police expect to print somewhere between 35K-60K cards annually and look to install chips in the cards to help restrict access to controlled areas. You could also expect them to buy lanyards in large quantities which will help display the badges more prominently for civilians and other law enforcement officials to be easily recognize those on the force.

No responses yet

Nov 22 2009

The liberty to travel

Published by admin under Blogging, Liberty

What are your thoughts on Hawaii? Is this tiny group of islands in the Pacific the perfect place to take the family on vacation or is Hawaii more for people that have just tied the knot? There’s two places I have always wanted to go to. One is Las Vegas and the other is Hawaii. I would have my concerns with the tsunamis that exist in the Pacific Ocean, but it just seems like such a magical place. It probably wasn’t like that on December 7th, back in 1941, when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. I think the tiny islands have all recovered since then and Hawaii is one of the top tourist destinations for Americans.

I guess my travels to Hawaii will be done as a vacation for me adn looking for Expedia coupons will be a way to help reduce the cost of part of my trip. I would hope to make a trip there before I get married, because that might still be a long time away. Maybe I can just hop on a plane and go to Vegas and Hawaii on the same trip. I think that is called killing 2 birds with one stone. If I did do both on the same trip, I could give a good comparision and decide which place is best. If I had to pick only one place to travel to for right now, I would certainly choose Hawaii over Las Vegas.

No responses yet

Next »

Cars