Thomas Paine: Bicentennial of a Patriot
08. Jun, 2009 
51 Comments
Editor’s Note: June 8, 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of a hero. Thomas Paine was actively involved in both the American and French Revolutions and is best known for his major works Common Sense, The Rights of Man and The Age of Reason.
But, Paine was more than just a pamphleteer for the cause of freedom. He was a serious political philosopher, as the following excerpt from The Rights of Man demonstrates.
Society is a Blessing, But Government is Evil
by Thomas Paine
A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together.
The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man it is necessary to attend to his character. As nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants acting upon every individual impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a center.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants, which the reciprocal aid of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
If we examine, with attention, into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.
Government is no further necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.
For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defense to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet, during this interval, order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resources, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.
So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, it acts by contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organization which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilized life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out of it.
Formal government makes but a small part of civilized life; and when even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental principles of society and civilization – to the common usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained – to the unceasing circulation of interest, which passing through its innumerable channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilized man – it is to these things, infinitely more than anything which even the best instituted government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual and of the whole depends.
The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilized life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are that first condense man into society, and what the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each other.
Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of consistency than he is aware of, or that governments would wish him to believe. All the great laws of society are the laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and obeyed because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose.
But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being engrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favor and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.
If we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have happened in England, we shall find, that they did not proceed from the want of a government, but that government was itself the generating cause; instead of consolidating society, it divided it; it deprived it of its natural cohesion, and engendered discontents and disorders, which otherwise would not have existed. In those associations which men promiscuously form for the purpose of trade or of any concern, in which government is totally out of the question, and in which they act merely on the principles of society, we see how naturally the various parties unite; and this shows, by comparison, that governments, so far from always being the cause or means of order, are often the destruction of it. The riots of 1780 had no other source than the remains of those prejudices that the government itself had encouraged. But with respect to England there are also other causes.
Excess and inequality of taxation, however disguised in the means, never fail to appear in their effect. As a great mass of the community are thrown thereby into poverty and discontent, they are constantly on the brink of commotion; and, deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the means of information, are easily heated to outrage. Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of happiness. It shows that something is wrong in the system of government, which injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved.
Having thus endeavored to show, that the social and civilized state of man is capable of performing within itself, almost everything necessary to its protection and government, it will be proper, on the other hand, to take a review of the present old governments, and examine whether their principles and practice are correspondent thereto.
It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle, sacred and moral. The obscurity, in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began. The origin of the present governments of America and France will ever be remembered, because it is honorable to record it; but with respect to the rest, even flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time, without an inscription.
It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contribution. Their power being thus established, the chief of the band contrived to lose the name of robber in that of monarch; and hence the origin of monarchy and kings.
The origin of the government of England, so far as it relates to what is called its line of monarchy, being one of the latest, is perhaps the best recorded. The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.
Those bands of robbers having parceled out the world, and divided it into dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with each other. What at first was obtained by violence was considered by others as lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded the first. They alternately invaded the dominions which each had assigned to himself, and the brutality with which they treated each other explains the original character of monarchy. It was ruffian torturing ruffian.
The conqueror considered the conquered not as his prisoner, but his property. He led him in triumph rattling in chains, and doomed him, at pleasure, to slavery or death. As time obliterated the history of their beginning, their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power they originally usurped, they affected to inherit.
From such beginning of governments, what could be expected, but a continual system of war and extortion? It has established itself into a trade. The vice is not peculiar to one more than to another, but is the common principle of all. There does not exist within such governments a stamina whereon to engraft reformation; and the shortest and most effectual remedy is to begin anew.
What scenes of horror, what perfection of iniquity, present themselves in contemplating the character, and reviewing the history of such governments! If we would delineate human nature with a baseness of heart, and hypocrisy of countenance, that reflection would shudder at and humanity disown, it is kings, courts, and cabinets that must sit for the portrait. Man, as he is naturally, with all his faults about him, is not up to the character.
Can we possibly suppose that if government had originated in a right principle, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, that the world could have been in the wretched and quarrelsome condition we have seen it? What inducement has the farmer, while following the plow, to lay aside his peaceful pursuits and go to war with the farmer of another country? Or what inducement has the manufacturer? What is dominion to them or to any class of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any man’s estate, or raise its value? Are not conquest consequence? Though this reasoning may be good to a nation, it is not so to a government. War is the faro table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game.
If there is anything to wonder at in this miserable scene of governments, more than might be expected, it is the progress that the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce have made, beneath such a long accumulating load of discouragement and oppression. It serves to show that instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than the principles of society and civilization operate in man. Under all discouragements, he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but impossibilities.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.
Thomas Paine (1737–1809) was an English pamphleteer, revolutionary, radical, and classical liberal. Born in the market town of Thetford, England, he migrated to the American colonies at the age of 37, just in time to take part in the American Revolution. His main contribution was as the author of the powerful, widely read pamphlet, “Common Sense” (1776), advocating independence for the American colonies from Great Britain. He is also known for “The American Crisis” (1776–1783), a series of pamphlets supporting the American Revolution, and “The Rights of Man” (1791) defending the early French Revolution.
The previous essay is an excerpt from the writings of Thomas Paine which can be found in the third chapter of Liberty and the Great Libertarians, edited by Charles T. Sprading.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
I appreciate your newsletters and your video blog.
As to Federal and State powers, can you tell me under what terms the President, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve have the rights to print and spend trillions of dollars? How can this be stopped?
If the individual states could take back the right for each State’s Congress to send our representatives to Washington, perhaps our access to the State Congress will keep both the States and the U.S. Congress mre accountable and honest.
Isn’t it time to limit terms of all politicians? It appears that there is corruption that simply breeds new corruption, even with a change of representatives.
Under what right does the Congress riase their own salaries? Why do they get huge retirment benefits and superior lifelong medical care after just one term? This pratice is absurd. Shouldn’t We, The People, for whom the congress works, be authorizing these types of benefits? I surely wish I had a boss who allowed me to set my salary and benefits, and gave me a huge pension after just a few years of employment.
If both Federal and State reps were limited to just two terms, or better yet, just one term, then there would not be the terrible waste of time and money on election campaigns. The President might be limited to one six year term so he/she would spend all his/her time doing his/her job, rather than spending our tax money campaigning.
We, The People, need to better understand the Federal Reserve and its power. We would be so much better off without them entirely. We would also be better controlled fiscally with the return of the gold/silver standard.
If our Constitution states that the high courts of the land are for the purpose of interpreting the law, then why do some courts take it upon themselves to create law?
There’s plenty of talk about all the things that are being done wrong, and not in accordance with our Constitution. What I would like to learn is how to make it right.
Linda
What happen to the Tenth Amendment and the entire Constitution? Check out Barefoot Bob’s web site at:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/
The best book, written in 1950, I’ve ever read (Undermining the Constitution) explaining the demise of the Tenth Amendment may be read on line at Barefoot’s page:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nortonuc.html
Allan
Now there are some original ideas worth pursuing! States setting term limits on congressional members via ballot eligiblity statutes. States withdrawing representation in Congress by statute in protest of a government that is totally irresponsible, out of control, and has displayed a complete disregard for the rule of law under a written constitution.
The first one, term limits, ought to be enacted tomorrow, no questions asked. The second one ought to follow the federal government’s ignoring of a State’s Tenth Amendment Resolution: if the government will not respect or respond to a State’s appeal that reserved States’ Right be respected, then that same State and Leglislature ought to bar congressional respresentation. I think we could get Washington’s attention VERY FAST by this sort of approach. Just imagine when congress convenes and nobody fron Texas is there!
Although he made some contributions useful to the Revolution, Thomas Paine is really a blind idiot. He is ranked among those morally disposed toward atheism at worst or deism at best. His claim that “nature created man” and fitted him with social instinct is folly. God created man and it is God who ordained civil government for man’s benefit and the better ordering of society. We can no more do without government than we can do without God. Paine’s idea that “government is evil” and that man’s need or desire of “society” will answer all the functions of government is ridiculous. Only a dreamer and atheist could come up with an idea so perfectly absurd. Government is like medicine, a little will do a lot of good, but a lot will kill the patient. We need government and without it only anarchy will result. The whole experience of mankind in every age of recorded history screams out this fact. This same disposition toward anarchy and anti-Christian animus is all through the Libertarian party. It does not surprise me that they find Paine’s ridiculous ideas attractive.
“he made some contributions to the revolution”
now that’s the understatement of the year. It’s amazing to me how people become so blind because Paine hated the tryanny of organized religions of the day.
Paine was brilliant – and the contributions he made to the revolutionary period were incalculable.
Government is like medicine, PHL? You mean like the economic “medicine” we’re getting today? Or, maybe the brilliant foreign policy this medicine has given the world for the last 100 years? Or, maybe the drug war – which imprisons hundreds of thousands of people every year for simple non-violent possession?
That “medicine” that Paine, Washington, Jefferson and so many other wise people warned us about is quickly killing what little is left of America.
Thomas Paine, God rest his soul, could today add a new “banditti of ruffians”, that of international corporations and professional unions which not satisfied with concessions and privelages granted them, decided to infiltrate and take over. Today their interests trump peoples interests.
Will smaller governments (State Rights) save us from this new form of dictatorship? I don’t know but as Mr. Paine said that all forms of goverment are “consigned to the tomb of time”.
Mr. Patrick Henry Lives: When you say that “…it is God who ordained civil government…”, what scripture passage are you referring to? God appointed Moses to lead his people not govern. Then he gave the people through Moses the Ten Commandments to live by. That is about it. But, then, I’m not knowledgeble on either subject. Confused as ever, that I am.
Casey, I think that statement about God and government is one of the biggest problems we face today. Government, whether people admit it or not, actually seems to be God for many people these days.
When they’re sick, they run to the government. When they’re scared, they run to the government. When they want work, or advice, or education, or food, or shelter, or are having needs or problems of any kind – they run to the government.
If they were doing this on a state or local level, the awful effects of such a mindset would be limited. But these days, they do it on a national level – and we end up with a tryanny of the most vocal.
Revilo P. Oliver said Christianity was a disease of the brain. Could be Oliver was in part talking about Christians supporting Congress’ criminal act of funding and arming America’s controller Israel for over 60 years. Not to mention supporting Congress’ criminal wars for Israel in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Did not the Christian element, for the most part, support the federal and Texas governments’ murder of the Davidians at Waco? Some of those survivors are still in jail for defending themselves, I hear. I wonder if Christians served on the Jury?
Allan
Patrick Henry Lives, Paine is a blind idiot? Paine clearly believed in humanity and its innate ability to self govern, even when no government is present. I don’t see where he holds a torch for anarchy when he holds the belief that people gravitate to a collective set of principles even when they are not governed. And I don’t see where his religious view, whatever they are, have anything to do with it.
You said “We can no more do without government than we can do without God.” I disagree. As Paine said, “For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government.” So, you could still believe in God and He could play a role in your life without government. I think God is more important than government.
Paine, “Government is no further necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.” I don’t see him saying anything about no need for government. He is saying a small government is better. His belief in humanity is first because it is from there that we are naturally inclined, as social and sovereign beings, to form governments.
Casey wrote:
“Mr. Patrick Henry Lives: When you say that “…it is God who ordained civil government…”, what scripture passage are you referring to? God appointed Moses to lead his people not govern. Then he gave the people through Moses the Ten Commandments to live by. That is about it. …”
Actually, on a purely scriptural basis that is not accurate.
Whether you believe in the biblical God or not, that the Bible is God’s revelation to man, or just another religious fairy tale, the scripture is clear that God did ordain a specific form of government for the children of Israel. This form of government included the representative and the federal principles, as well as the national principle, etc. I won’t give you a precise scriptural reference, except to say to go to where the Exodus from Egypt takes place. Note particularly when Moses’s father-in-law Jethro comes to visit.
Nothing like throwing rocks at a bee hive to stir things up!
Paine was not well received by the majority of Americans in the Colonial period. His book “Common Sense” devoted large sections to attacking or rejecting Christianity and the God of the Bible and the deity of Christ; he was therefore morally rejected by the great mass of people. He believed that Islam was as valid as Christianity and that there was no direct revelation from God in the Bible such that man could appeal to it as an absolute. His idea of religion was to simply “make it up for one’s self.” This sort of thinking is very much in step with the moral relativism and situation ethics of our day, which thinks homosexual sodomy and “transgenderism” are morally indifferent and simply a matter of preference. This sort of thinking is what underlies all of liberalism and the movement away from traditional values and ideas about limited government. The step from atheism to totalitarianism is very small. Just look at the globe. Only where Christianity is vividly alive are men truly free. Where Christianity does not exist or where it is weak and watered down, the State quickly rushes in to fill the void. The State is only too glad to arrogate to itself all that rightfully belongs to God. Once we begin down the road of Paine-style liberalism we quickly end up with totalitarianism and lesser forms of socialized government. That is why Paine’s ideas were so dangerous and we are seeing the fruit of them even now.
The idea that government is a mere “convenience” to supply a few things that abstract society can provide anyway, but for convenience’ sake has given over to government, is absurd. Government is essential to man’s safety and society’s proper function. Yes, less is better than more, to be sure. It is in this sense like medicine – a little medicine is good and beneficial, but a lot of medicine is harmful and will kill us. But just because a lot of government is bad hardly justifies calling all government “evil.” Just because for two years there was no central government (the state governments were certainly extant) is hardly proof that government is not really needed at all. There was a crisis and it was only because men could not stop to create a government that they did not do so. However, they soon saw the necessity and quickly acted to create the Continental Congress so that the war could be prosecuted successfully. Anyone who thinks government is not essential doesn’t know their history. I suggest looking at the Los Angeles riots a few years back and that will give you a good window into the world where there is no government to provide and enforce order. Yes, government is essential and it was instituted by God for our good and the better ordering of society. Without it, the criminal element would quickly overrun us all. See Romans 13.
To see the ludicrous nature of Paine’s thinking that religion is something we can just make up for ourselves, we need only consider that the idea of American-style limited government presupposes an intensely religious people whose ethics and moral values allow them to govern themselves. But if all religions are equally valid and we can just make them up as we go – if God took no more care or concern for man than to leave him without some definitive revelation of himself and his laws – then there is no absolute standard and moral and religious anarchy quickly result and the very notion of limited government through individual responsibility and self government goes up in smoke. For without an absolute standard to define morality there can be no universal standard individual responsibility or proper limit on government. That is why the majority party, which is strongly anti-Christian, is also inherently socialistic. Thus, Paine’s liberalism overthrows the very thing he set out to accomplish. And that, dear reader, is why he was blinded by his pride and intellectual elitism, and rejected by the majority of Colonial Americans.
Atheism a step away from totalitarianism? I’ve heard this argument before. It is arrogant to assume an atheist had no moral fiber or are without an inner sense of what is right and true in regard to society. Freedom of religion, or lack thereof is at the heart of who we are. It isn’t a rod to be used to beat in the head of another. In this country you can write anything you want about God, pro or con, and be expected to have opinions vary to support or contradict your views. This doesn’t make one a liberal.
I understand Paine to mean that government is essential, even inevitable. And it serves us best when employed in small doses. As social beings we are very capable of tying our own shoes, we do not need our very strings governed. Government will, as is currently evident, exceed its own importance, tread beyond its carefully described enumerated power and authority to show its might in areas where it should be powerless. It is the same evil inside us all that we try to tame when we find ourselves walking beyond our personal boundaries and infringing on the rights of others. It isn’t right when we do it to each other and it sure isn’t right when a government does it as well.
A good example of where Paine’s notion liberalism – his notion that “all religions are equal” and that God has left no direct or definitive revelation of himself in the Bible – will take us, is abortion and euthanasia. The Bible provides a very clear definition of murder, one which we use even today. It defines murder as an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. It also addresses the sanctity of life in the womb, which it protects, but treats as something less than murder if the child was not born alive.
Now, if there is no definitive standard, if God has nowhere left a revelation of himself and his will for man, if God has no more care for us than to just let us shift for ourselves, then there really is no standard by which he can judge or condemn us, nor one by which we can judge and condemn our selves or other men. The little lamp of reason is all that is left to guide us, and this is horribly inadequate as any objective test will show. By “reason” (“natural law” according to some) one man can justify sodomy, another abortion, still another euthanasia, still another the extermination of political enemies, still another the gassing Jews. How can these be condemned? Reason provides no certain source for it has led men to commit these very crimes. In fact, without the God of the Bible, there is no reason we cannot enslave one another or why government should not enslave us. Isn’t this what the evolutionists teach, survival of the fittest? There is no moral code in that!
Yes, Paine’s liberalism was very dangerous ; it bears the seeds of all lawlessness, slavery, and oppression. That is why tyrants wage a relentless war against Christianity: it claims a system of absolutes that requires that men condemn the tyrant’s lawless acts. But if there are no absolutes and the Bible is not God’s revelation of himself to man, then the tyrant need not fear. He has license to do whatever he wants.
As to atheists, they must find a system of values somewhere. If they just make them up for themselves, then there are no limits except what we impose upon our selves. The majority party today, which is hostile to Biblical morality and Christ, has no problem with carving up viable, nine-month old babies in thier mother’s womb. Why not? Gee, babies are so inconvenient to my self indulgent lifestyle. Yes, atheisim (not necessarily all atheists) is a short step to totalitarianism. Just ask any baby who has come under the abortionist’s knife!
Atheism a step away from totalitarianism? I’ve heard this argument before. It is arrogant to assume an atheist had no moral fiber or are without an inner sense of what is right and true in regard to society.
Atheists have been called by some “the faithful opposition,” but that was before atheists and atheistic Darwinism became oppressive. General Washington observed that:
Who that is a sincere friend to it (that is, our species of free government) can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Certainly not I, and certainly not Patrick Henry Lives. You want to argue the influence of atheism vs. Christianity on the U.S. Constitution and the foundation of America? I’ll personally take you to the cleaners…and back.
I’m a fifth-grade teacher in Jefferson County, and an crucial part of teaching civics is providing students with our primary sources: the founding documents. This is critical in understanding what “We the People” really means. Today, as they did over 230 years ago, those documents instill in students the belief that all our voices are important. Every one of our citizens are given the right to pursue liberty. Futures do not have to be inevitable and “Little voices” can make dramatic impacts on events. That is Thomas Paine’s greatest contribution to our country. His pamphlet, Common Sense, spoke to all the voices in the 13 colonies during a time of great fear and indecision. He gave a vast number of citizens a vision of what each could do, 176 days before the Declaration of Independence. A belief that power should radiate from the citizens. That message is still paramount to all our students today. For that pamphlet alone, Paine needs to be recognized as a integral part of the American miracle.
Mark Wilensky,
author of “The Elementary Common Sense of Thomas Paine: An Interactive Adaptation for All Ages”
“I’m a fifth-grade teacher in Jefferson County, and an crucial part of teaching civics is providing students with our primary sources: the founding documents. This is critical in understanding what “We the People” really means. Today, as they did over 230 years ago, those documents instill in students the belief that all our voices are important. Every one of our citizens are given the right to pursue liberty. Futures do not have to be inevitable and “Little voices” can make dramatic impacts on events.”
Sure: Meet the Press with Colin Powell.
So I got my Masonic Bible out and read EXODUS 18. That part where Jehro tells Moses that he works too hard. Delegate he said and Moses did. So now we have Moses(Supreme Court) and a bunch of smaller courts. The Judicial branch was born. Now you would think that with God above and Moses in between the children of God would be happy and nice to each other. Nope, not a chance. Everyone and his uncle was at Moses door with a complaint. Mr. BOLDIN points out that it is so also today. Back to the story. So Moses gets these Commandments to be printed and distributed. Simple enough, straight forward and to the point. There must have been a lawyer in the crowd because ammendments followed, lots of them. Which took me to ROMANS 13 for the sense of it all. Here in no uncertain terms it states that there is “no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God”. So, there you are. If you are not a Bible believer then your in a world of hurt. Obama said he is in charge of a secular nation, he is in a world of hurt. Our “pride and intellectual elitism” (quote PHL) is in a world of hurt. So lets stop analyzing and disecting what our founding fathers said or meant. Lets throw the incumbents out of office come 2012
a replace them with God loving judicial minds. Thank you all for your posts.
The critical issue here is that Paine had some very definite short comings whose seeds we see in society today, eating out the heart of our country and leading us into the chains of slavery. Only a vigorous system of values springing from Christianity and the sacred scriptures can we hope to maintain our freedom. Every step away from that mainspring of all human progress and illunination a step toward ruin.
I do not begrudge Paine’s contribution to our national heritage or the war for Independence. I do say, however, that the sources of Colonial ideas about limited government and individual responsibility are ultimately Christianity and the Bible, not liberalism or the so-called “enlightenment. “
I would like some comment on the suggestion in the first post by Linda Parker that the State governments limit congressional terms by ballot access legislation. What a great idea! Jeff Matthews is a practicing lawyer. What about it Jeff? Is this do-able or does federal law prevent the States from legislation of this sort? If not, I marvel that no one thought of it sooner!
Exerpts from:
Conspiracy, Census and the Case for Secession
by Gary D. Barnett – posted at Lew Rockwell.com
Secession should not be feared but embraced. Our country was borne by secession and in my opinion can only be saved by secession. Secession in my mind is an inherent, God-given right. If one is bound by or to the state by force, freedom has no validity and cannot exist. Secession is the virtual unbinding of the chains of tyranny. It is the emancipation if you will, from the servitude of the state and awakens the spirit of liberty. What better solution is there when extreme conditions exist?
Many will balk at the idea of secession but there is no need. Our country would not be torn apart, but restored, by separating ourselves from a tyrannical government. Secession is not a breakup of the country because the country will remain intact. The spirit of America would not be lost but regained. The oppressive power of the federal government would be curtailed, and in many cases eliminated. Just think of the benefits if the federal government’s power was eradicated. Massive taxation and inflation would all but disappear. Unjust and unholy foreign aggression would not be possible. Spying, wiretapping and unwarranted searches would be a thing of the past. The growing police state and standing armies could not be funded at current levels and would have to be pared back. U.S. military bases in other countries would have to be closed and all military personnel could come home where they belong. The insane war on drugs and its accompanying prison-state apparatus would shut down. With these changes, torture would no longer be the rule of the day, and civil and just law could return. In other words, a return to freedom would be evident and real prosperity would once again be available for all to seek. Does this sound euphoric? Of course it does, because freedom and free markets are euphoric in a real way, unlike the so-called socialistic euphoria based on theft and oppression.
This is serious business! It is important, it is imperative, and time is of the essence! Any secession from this tyrannical government, whether by states, portions of states, or regions, will require gargantuan efforts by individuals. This government will never be receptive of any plan to limit its power, and secession is a virtual elimination and negation of centralized government. No break from this behemoth can or will be achieved through government action or government process. That would be an exercise in futility and would fuel even more oppression. It will require that those involved, whether individuals, groups of individuals or entire states, not obey any unconstitutional or unjust federal law. As should be evident, this will be no easy task, but the rewards of victorious secession are freedom, liberty and prosperity.
Wishfull thinking PHL but no dice. I saw how upset Texans were at Waco and those others at Ruby Ridge. The backbone of our country, the best DNA were lost on Normandy Beach, Korea and the jungles of Vietnam. The slime are running the country now and they like it. There are just too few of us left…this from an old sergeant(e-5)US Army, ret.
I’m very happy with the Christian influence found in the Constitution. I’m also happy that many religions have representation and free worship in our country. I’m happy that cooler heads prevailed when religion was discussed when the Constitution was formed, otherwise we would be living a Christian State. That would not have been wise.
I used to be an Atheist for a time and I maintained the same moral standard that I have today. I might note that statistically speaking the first thing an inmate asks for is a Bible. Being a Christian is no guarantee that you are morally superior to another.
Linda Parker,
Good idea, but lets carry it one step further. The following is not my original idea: Who ever pays your wages is who controls you. All Federal Congressmen are paid by the Federal Government, their salaries and retirement, consequently “Who’s Bread I Eat, Is Who’s Song I Sing” Lets have the individual States pay their salaries and retirement, and if they don’t perform, no retirement.
From another perspective on the importance of Thomas Paine,
this long column with several illustrtions, is posted on
the World Socialist Web Site:
Citizen of the world: a brief survey of the life and times of Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
By Ann Talbot
8 June 2009
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/pain-j08.shtml
(June 8 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of the 18th century revolutionary Thomas Paine. We are reposting the following lecture by World Socialist Web Site correspondent Ann Talbot presented on September 24, 2004 to a meeting in Britain organised by the Rotherham Metropolitan District Local History Council, as part of the Rotherham Arts Festival.)
In the winter of 1788, a small team of men were building a bridge across the river Don in Rotherham. The fact that before Christmas a stream of distinguished visitors had been to see the construction was an indication that this was no ordinary bridge and its designer was no ordinary engineer. Leading the project was Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense and The American Crisis, which had been read to Washington’s soldiers before the Battle of Trenton on Christmas Day 1776.
Thomas Paine’s words ring very true today, “The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.” The Constitution was written by liberals, conservatives, and democrats who all believed in a government for the people. We as a republic were represented by the same governing principles we have today. This is the reason the Constitution of the United States is one of the most respected and studied documents in history. The framer’s of the Constitution gave us a set of disiplines to assist us as a people in governing ourselves. Our society was designed so that people have a voice in government and the way we are governed. Our framer’s gave us disiplines for a republic not designed for socialism or communism. When a government deprives a nation ‘of natural cohesion, one engendered discontents and disorders, which otherwise would not exist’ and when Americans are deprived of vital information thir voices being silenced and the framer’s intentions and disciplines ignored, and in some instances changed then you have tyranny.We are a nation under God and those who believe in his existence believe in their right to worship and believe as they choose. When the initials that stand for our God are covered up and religious tributes to our God are asked to be removed this is a desecration of the moral fiber of our nation. We the people in order to form a more perfect union feel every man is created equal and we find these atrocities committed by our governing powers to be self evident.Our framer’s did not intend for us to wage war on innocent civilizations without the expressed consent of the American people nor was our government designed for those duly elected individuals to consolidate against the American people developing their own laws and passing their own legislation and silencing the American people’s voice. This is not the age of reason but the age of tyranny against the republic of the United States of America.
Re: state law to limit terms for Congress.
I’m not an elections attorney, but I believe I recall the Gore vs. Fla. case decided by the SCt on the basis that local election laws rule. It is interesting, and someone ought to look it up.
Okay. Okay. I know I’m the lawyer, but it’s late. I’m out of town. Maybe when I get back if nobody beats me to it.
One point of difference is that in Gore, it was about counting ballots – not candidate qualifications. Federal law might apply to preempt state laws that try to disqualify a federal candidate.
I don’t know. Interesting question. Periodically, some very god ideas get raised here.
Still waiting for the silver bullet….
My guess was right. States may not vary qualifications for federal office.
I hope this link works….
http://books.google.com/books?id=BXIXbB1bB38C&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=term+limits+federal+office+state+law&source=bl&ots=-ECWHAPL0s&sig=j_8eG-Uhn7mKYEWCtjCjuMzwsVc&hl=en&ei=3uAtSpunDITGtAOC4J22CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
I remain convinced that the federal income tax directly on all US citizens was the nail in the coffin. Until this is repealed or nullified, the rights we defend will equate to mere crumbs left over from Congress’ cookie.
I still maintain the 10th movement is good, but the only elixir for us states is to make it where our people stop funding the feds.
That’s a tough one.
That’s where all our efforts need to be applied. All other ideas should merely be indirect means of getting there.
I’m not sure I understand Linda’s question/suggestion. She wrote:
If the individual states could take back the right for each State’s Congress to send our representatives to Washington, perhaps our access to the State Congress will keep both the States and the U.S. Congress mre accountable and honest.
I’m assuming she’s talking about the original mode of appointing U.S. Senators, which, of course, was changed by adoption of the 17th amendment. But the lower house has always been elected by direct vote of the People of the several states as mandated by the federal constitution, so the State legislatures have never really had anything to do with that. And I should add that the federal constitution does not authorize them to have anything to do with it. Unless she’s alluding to the pre-fourteenth amendment constitutional arrangement in which States determined citizenship, thus voting qualifications, for their own inhabitants exclusive of the national authority. Under that arrangement the state governments had an indirect influence in the selection of U.S. House members elected by direct vote of the people, and the people an indirect vote in the selection of the U.S. Senate appointed directly by the state legislatures. (A nicely balanced arrangement as far as I’m concerned, notwithstanding the slavery question which is a whole ‘nother issue irrelevant to this particular point.)
Article I of the federal constitution provides, or applies, a uniform standard of qualifications requisite for electors of the U.S. House of Representatives (it does not tell the states what qualifications to adopt for their citizens), and the 17th amendment adopts this standard, and the direct vote, for the selection of upper House members. But the provisions of the 14th amendment removed from the states the (exclusive) power to determine citizenship for their own inhabitants in any event, creating a dual citizenship and federal intervention. Reclaiming that power by any other means than the amendment process (a virtual impossibility) would essentially, and for all intents and purposes, be the same thing as secession. In which case, of course, such states wouldn’t concern themselves with making appointments to the federal Congress in any event.
Nonetheless, Linda’s reasoning on this point is sound. It stands to reason that the closer the government is to the people, the closer the people are to the government. In the end, more accountability, and, yes, more honesty.
Linda,
There are a couple of incorrect directions of thought in your statement; Lawmakers are indeed paid with a government check, but government pays with money stolen from the Citizenry. Government does not own money, or the value of it. Nor does government “Hire” Lawmakers. The People, Voters, Hire every Lawmaker in the Country and Hire those Lawmakers in the House every two years.
Government doesn’t own anything; everything in government possession belongs to the People.
Allan
Excerpt from the book “Undermining the Constitution”:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nortonuc.html
General Welfare brilliantly defined by Jefferson
Although Jefferson was in Paris while the Constitutional Convention was sitting, he was in close communication with Madison and other delegates. He knew the Constitution. In a profoundly able letter to Albert Gallatin in 1817 he discussed the General Welfare Clause on which the Social Security Act was based (italics inserted):
“You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both Houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the Constitution which authorizes Congress ‘to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,’ was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the Federal doctrine. Whereas our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the Federalists and the Republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but was restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have meant that they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation on the purposes for which they may raise money.
“I think the passage and rejection of this bill a fortunate incident. Every State will certainly concede the power; and this will be a national confirmation of the grounds of appeal to them, and will settle forever the meaning of this phrase, which, by a mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the General Government in a claim of universal power. For in the phrase ‘to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,’ it is a mere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first, or are distinct and co-ordinate powers; a question unequivocally decided by the exact definition of powers immediately following.”
(1) Taxation isn’t theft. If it is, then the U.S. Constitution establishes a government of, by, and for thieves.
(2) Much of what is in the possession of the government has been hawked out, and/or sold to foreign countries. So it doesn’t actually belong to us either.
“Doubtless the preservation of Christianity, as a national religion, is, abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the untmost consequence to the civil state: which a single instance will sufficiently demonstrate. The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas ofa the moral attributes of the supreme being, and firm persuasion thathe superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life(all which are clearly revealed in the doctrines, and forcibly inclucated by the precepts, of of our saviour Christ) these are the ground foundation of all judicial oaths; which call God to witness the truth of those facts, which perhaps may be only known to him and the party attesting: all moral evidence thefore, all confidence in hman veracity, must be weakened by irreligion, and overthrown by infidelity. Wherefore all affronts to Christianity, or endeavours to deprecate it efficacy, are highly deserving of human punishment.” William Blackstone, Commentary on the Laws of England, IV, iv, 1.
One can see in this statement the sure foundation all of civil society must rest upon where the people are devoutely religious and where Christianity is formally acknowledged by the civil government as intrinsically true. But in a country where atheism is the official doctrine of the state, and men are taught that life comes from nothing, returns to nothing, and therefore means nothing, where men are taught they are the product of pure, blind, evolutionary chance, the can be small ground for moral excellence or virtue or security of persons or property against men and government.
And this is precisely where America finds itself today. Tens of millions of innocent school children have been vitimized by an atheistic education and world view, raised upon the ridiculous and fatalistic idea that life is the product of pure, blind chance, that there are no moral absolutes, that each must decide for himself, that we all have a right to support, housing, food, medical assistance, and that government is the “great provider” so that we can stay home, have illegitimate children, smoke pot, and watch day time TV.
Is it any wonder freedom is fast receding from the landscape?
“The preservation of Christianity as a national religion is of the utmost consequence to the civil state.”
Not only is taxation ot theft, the money does not belong to the people. You can test the first assertion by bringing a civil suit againt the US for theft. You will lose.
You can test the second assertion by asking them to give you yours back.
I do realize the ideas expressed about taxes are most often used as a sort of analogy.
I was glad to see the Jefferson writing about “general Welfare.” This was always obvious to me, even though I never saw it before. Now, if you want, you can go read the US Sct case on the Social Secrity laws. It is on the Social Security website.
The opinion is a pile of hash, and it shows just how disingenuous the SCt can be. If you read that case carefully and parse it down, you will see that it could have been written by a 12th-grader. It is a very good example of how not to think like a lawyer.
STATE LEGISLATORS, PLEASE NOTE! IF YOU DON’T ACT, NO ONE CAN SAVE US. CON-CON OR SECESSION – THE ONLY OTHER CHOICE IS RUIN
Rush Limbaugh: Obama destroying U.S. economy
Says Mikhail Gorbachev essentially endorsing Barack’s plan
“Mikhail Gorbachev presided over the collapse of his country like Barack Obama is presiding over the collapse of his,” Limbaugh said on his program today. “And so a man who knows how to collapse his own economy is now advising us on how to collapse ours.
“Ladies and gentlemen, there can be no other way to say this now. The gloves have to come off. It’s time for people to sober up. The president of the United States, Barack Obama, is destroying the United States economy. There is no other way to describe this, systematically destroying it,” he said.
“‘Rush, are you saying he’s destroying it on purpose?’ I’m not going there, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the United States economy is being destroyed. Even the Associated Press, government-run Associated Press with a headline: ‘Big Government Spending Programs Have Opposite Effect on Economy.’ They are concluding that you cannot spend yourself out of a recession. So what is President Obama planning to do? Spend even more, even sooner,” he said. “Here is the AP story: ‘The Federal Reserve announced a $1.2 trillion plan three months ago designed to push down mortgage rates
and breathe life into the housing market. But this and other big government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect.’ It is not just that they aren’t working, they are hurting, they are harming.”
Limbaugh continued with a quote from Gorbachev, “‘The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century has turned out to be unsustainable.’ This is an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, by the way. Gorbachev wrote in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, ‘It was based on a drive for super-profits and hyper-consumption for a few, on unrestrained exploitation of resources and on social and environmental irresponsibility.’”
Then came Gorbachev’s prediction of “perhaps even greater upheaval down the road.”
“He is endorsing what Obama is doing, tearing apart the greatest economy in the history of the world. Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over the collapse of his own economy, is essentially now endorsing the same steps taken by Barack Obama. I don’t know about you, when I have a former communist totalitarian dictator articulating policies identical to those being enacted by a United States president, I get scared,” he said.
“Gorbachev presided over the destruction of the Soviet Union, and Barack Obama is presiding over the destruction of the United States of America. There is no other way to say this. Given the economic numbers that we have – given the 25-year record unemployment, given that there is no positive economic news anywhere – wouldn’t somebody with common sense and a brain think that after … eight months of an amount of spending that equals $11 trillion and an over $2 trillion budget deficit this year – after eight months of stimulating the economy in ways that have never been done, under the theory that this was the only way to revive our U.S. economy – isn’t it time to stop and say, ‘Wait a minute! The political solutions not only aren’t working, they are making it worse?’
“I am convinced that Barack Obama, whether he wants to or not, is in the process of destroying it. This and other big-government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect,” Limbaugh said.
Well, I’m certainly sympathetic to the view that taxation can be, and often is, overly burdensome and destructive of wealth. But to say that our governors steal from the citizens to pay their own salaries doesn’t seem to be very helpful. What they pay themselves amounts to a drop in the bucket in any case.
There are legitimate governmental functions, and it isn’t theft to tax the citizenry in order to pay for them. Then again there are things that government clearly should not involve itself in, such as charity work. In that case government coerces the money from the industrious and redistributes it to the slovenly. But if there’s any theft going on there one need look no further than the voting public who cast their votes for unprincipled legislators who they know have no qualms with using the hand of government to reach into the pockets of the wealth-makers and pull out wads of money. So much for the idea of “universal suffrage.” It might work out if people were universally principled. But that’s not the way it is, nor will it ever be.
However, taxing (or indepting) future generations IS theft – generational theft – pure and simple. There can be no doubt about that.
Patrick Henry Lives,
What you’re writing about the importance of Christianity to Western civilization, and to America in particular, is probably falling mainly on deaf ears. But certainly not these. This used to be common knowledge and more or less universally recognized and accepted as a positive good in America.
America’s Schoolmaster, Noah Webster, once wrote that “these United States present the first example in modern times of a government founded on its legitimate principles.” This same Webster wrote in the introduction to his book “History of the United States” that “The brief exposition of the constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government. And it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion. Historian Dewitt Clinton referred to Jesus as “The Great Republican.” John Quincy Adams proclaimed that “the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior of the World. And on and on and on. This is all just a matter of record; a record that for whatever reason modern America chooses to ignore by and large. The modern hostility (at times completely irrational hostility) towards the Christian religion and its influence on the founding generation, particularly from the political right, is really astounding sometimes. I certainly have my suspicions as to why this is, but I’ll leave that for another post.
Again, you have at least one reader on your side.
Hi Terry,
Glad to know I’m not totally alone. Funny thing: yesterday I threw a proverbial rock at the bee-hive of Thomas Paine, showing how his liberalism and intellectual elitism in rejecting the Bible as God’s revelation of himself to man, are the thing that has brought us to the crisis we are at today.
Silence.
I brought forth arguments, showing, I think, that liberalism has no objective moral standard that can sustain liberty or establish the security of the citizen against the government.
More Silence.
I added the testimony of the great jurist, William Blackstone, and showed that without an objective source of morality, liberty and security cannot exist and how that has brought us to where we are today.
Still more silence.
Conclusion: There seem to be no effective arguements to acquit Paine’s style of liberalism from the charge that it has lead us to the very brink of the slavery and ruin he worked to prevent. At least, no body has even atempted to marshal a reply.
I think that is telling. The younger crowd has been under the influence of our culture during a period it is at its worst, so they probably do not have the background to know any better. But some of us older folks can remember when things were different…and when they were better!
Religion (Christianity) is not tyranny. It is freedom and it is liberty. It is the absence of Christianty that brings on slavery. Take a trip to Russia or China if you doubt it.
Here is a wake up call, if there ever was one.
Obama’s Speech In Egypt
by Chuck Baldwin
June 9, 2009
Much has been made of President Barack Obama’s “reconciliation” speech in Cairo, Egypt, last week. For the most part, the American media have focused on Obama’s attempt to “repair” relations with the Muslim nations of the world. For example, Obama referenced the Koran five times, and the Bible only once. (It is noteworthy that one of the Koranic references Obama used was a verse dedicated to Islamic Jihad, in which Muslims are required to kill infidels–meaning those who are not Muslims, of course. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of America’s major media failed to report this story. See: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100504 )
As nonsensical and revolting as much of Obama’s speech was, the most egregiously dangerous statement he made in his Egyptian speech was another one that all but a small portion of America’s mainstream media bothered to report. The sinister statement is as follows:
“Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it.” (Barack Obama 06/04/2009, Source: WhiteHouse.gov)
Like his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama envisions a global union, in which all nations are linked commercially, governmentally, and militarily. Bush I called it a “New World Order;” Bush II called it an “international order;” Clinton often regurgitated Bush Sr.’s “New World Order” mantra; and Barack Obama called it a “world order.” Do people not recognize that every President since Ronald Reagan (both Democrat and Republican) has called for an international one-world order? Obama’s speech goes a step further, however.
In calling for a “world order,” Obama blatantly said “Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation . . . over another will inevitably fail.” Does everyone understand what Obama is saying? In order for this new “world order” to materialize, no individual nation can be preferred over another–not even our own. In a word, no country can be allowed to maintain national sovereignty, independence, or military superiority. All nations must be willing to surrender their sovereignty and independence to the new “world order.” Furthermore, all nations must be willing to submit their militaries to a new global military. Oh yes, my friend, all of this is inferred in Obama’s statement.
The last half of Obama’s statement is equally chilling: “Whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it.” In other words, Americans must forget about the heritage and tradition of our past. The ideas of national sovereignty and independence are archaic. The notion of “America First” is passé. The principles of constitutional government must be replaced with the international principles of a new “world order.”
In this regard, it would not have mattered to a tinker’s dam if John McCain had been elected President instead of Barack Obama. I well remember McCain repeatedly saying that one of the first things he would do after becoming President would be to implement a new “League of Democracies.” In fact, look no further than to a speech McCain made to the Hoover Institution. According to McCain, “The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order.” (Source: John McCain Addresses The Hoover Institution, CFR Publication, May 1, 2007)
At the national level, both the Republican and Democratic parties are taking the United States headlong into an international “New World Order.” The national news media is likewise culpable, as are the vast majority of the Religious Right and most other religious entities, organizations, and movements.
As an example, outside of this column, how many warnings have you read or heard regarding the abovementioned statement by Mr. Obama? I dare say that many readers are learning of this statement for the very first time as they read this column.
The burning question facing the American people today is, are we going to do nothing as these globalists who control our political and corporate institutions sell our country into global tyranny?
Forget Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly. They will do nothing to resist. Forget Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. They, too, will raise no voice of opposition. Forget Newt Gingrich. He is as much a part of the problem as anyone. Ditto for virtually every other major Republican in Washington, D.C.–with the exception of Ron Paul, of course. (At the national level, only Sarah Palin seems to bring any of the right instincts to the discussion, but she is desperately behind the curve on this issue, and needs much education if she is to be an effective voice on the subject.) Forget Nancy Pelosi and her fellow socialists in the Democratic Party. They have never seen a Big Government proposal that they did not love. And if they love big national government, think how they will love big international government.
Forget the TV news talk shows. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, they are all too busy putting big bucks in their bank accounts to have time to worry about something as insignificant (to them) as the surrender of our sovereignty and independence. Forget the vast majority of today’s pastors. They are either totally ignorant or unconcerned on the subject, or too busy fighting with their own carnal church members to provide the leadership necessary to “rally the troops”–as did the patriotic clergymen of Colonial America’s “Black Regiment.”
That leaves you and me–and God, of course. But then again, God, guns, and guts was all it took in 1776, wasn’t it?
So, while all of the attention of the “talking heads” was focused on virtually everything else Obama said, the most diabolical and potentially destructive statement that came from his mouth last week was all but ignored.
P.S. We are now shipping THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. Over 50 of America’s greatest historical documents in one volume. Our supply will only last for another week or so. Order your copies NOW. And remember, orders of ten (10) or more pay no shipping (credit card orders only). Go to:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
© Chuck Baldwin
I like Chuck Baldwin. He’s generally spot on in his columns.
I know it isn’t the popular view in an America where Islam is considered to be a “religion of peace,” “hijacked by a few radicals,” but it is simply undeniable to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the tenets of Mohammed’s religion that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. It denies every single aspect of the first amendment, for example, from the establishment of religion to the free exercise thereof. Not to mention the right of the people to peacefully assemble for a redress of grievances. But it goes way beyond mere denials of the principles of the first amendment. As the Muslim presence in America continues to grow and Muslims become more “empowered,” we shall see this manifest in all manner of ways. But who in his right mind can now deny that Hussein Obama is an Islamite of the first order?
A phrase I once encountered to describe our condition is “spiritual blindness.” A condition that obtains where men can no longer see or discern what is happening before thier very eyes, or if they see it, are morally paralysed and powerless to stop it. I find it more than a little interesting that at precisely that time in our nation’s history when we have arrived at a place where we no longer know right from wrong, we cannot see the moral depravity of one man putting his penis in another man’s mouth or rectum, we give the State’s seal of approval to homosexual marriages, elect a president who declares June “transgender” pride month, that precisely at that time, I say, we should also be facing an economic and political crisis that threatens to bring down the whole house of cards.
I have watched the nation for almost 30 years go along a track whose end could only be ruin, yet has been unable to do a single thing to stop it. The national debt clock has been running away in New York for as long as any of us can remember, yet year after year nothing is done.
Same with the New World Order. The Birch Society has been pounding on this situation since before I was born, but most people are emotionally unprepared to face the reality our government is working treasonously to betray our national sovereignty to a North American Union, with a further view to world government. I express no opinion whether they will succeed, but even though Lou Dobbs has been sounding the alarm on TV, nobody seems to give a flip. Ho, hum, who won American Idol? Has my government check arrived yet?
Here is what to my mind ought to incite civil war. The people of Oklahoma have an inherent right to display monuments reflecting thier community’s values and sentiments. Certainly, this has been their historic right since the pilgrims landed and even before. I think the State should pass a law saying the monument stays or the State secedes. It would be my sincerest pleasure to go and fight and die rather than let some outlaw, usurping judges further emasculate our constitution and further strip our country of its Christian heritage.
DENVER, CO – A federal appeals court has ruled that a Ten Commandments monument outside Oklahoma’s Haskell County Courthouse “has the primary effect of endorsing religion.”
A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to federal Judge Ronald White so he could issue a new ruling consistent with theirs. White previously rejected arguments that the monument promotes Christianity at the expense of other religions.
The latest ruling prompted Haskell County Commissioner Mitch Worsham to say, “Whoever was the judge in this, I feel sorry for him on Judgment Day.”
Haskell County’s attorneys can now ask all the judges on the appellate court to review the panel’s decision, or appeal the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Worsham says, “We’re not going to take it down.”
PHL – while I appreciate your passion, I’m going to request that you don’t leave comments that offer civil war as a solution.
We’re not here to incite violence…..so please respect that.
My apologies. I did not mean to imply agression, which I have repeatedly renounced. I meant merely that this sort of aggression by the federal government ought to be the sort of thing – a thing of sufficient moral value and importance to us as a people – that we ought to be willing to secede, rather than surrender this right that has historically been uncontested since the 1600’s, but now, because a few usurping federal judges, has suddenly become “unlawful”. Unlawful now after over 400 years? Who can abide such outrageous usurpations in silence? I believe with my whole being that we should be prepared to secede rather than abandon something so fundamental, something so important to our children and our communities – religion and morality -, and, having seceded, to meet force with force. And, yes, I will definitely respect your request and always try to be clear that violence must ONLY ever be defensive. As I have said over and over, secession should ALWAYS be peaceful and nonresistant. The federal government is the aggressor here, not the States or People.
I posted the Baldwin letter to an e-mail group and below
As an American Patriot who practices the Islamic faith; I respectfully request that you quit spreading lies about the Islamic faith and try to understand more. The commandment to kill was only revealed after repeated attempts by the Islamic community to make peace with the idol worshippers. The verse was revealed during a battle with the idolaters. It is unfortunately used out of context by misguided extremists such as the Taliban and Al-Qaida to further their hateful agenda, AND by misguided ‘non-Muslims’ who may harbor enmity towards the Islamic faith.
During the reign of Islam in the City of Jerusalem, all monotheistic faiths practiced w/o persecution. It was the Knights Templar and Radical ‘Christians’ who stirred up trouble that began the ‘Unholy Wars’ in the middle east which repercussions still reverberate there today.
It is this attitude towards my faith that have caused me to stay on the fringes of the Constitution Party. I see the Divine Hand in the creation of the US Constitution; and that the intent of the founding fathers was to promote the freedom to worship or not to worship. It was Islam 1200 years prior to this documents’ drafting that promotes justice, freedom, and equality.
If you truly care about understanding instead of persecuting what you may have only one side of the argument to, then please read the following:
Quran and Hadith on Religious Persecution
No compulsion in religion
This article has two sections. The first is a brief explanation of Quranic verses that are often mistaken as instructions to persecute Non-Muslims. The second section features verses from the Quran and Hadith that vehemently insist on religious tolerance and the idea of “no compulsion in religion.” God willing, Non-Muslims as well as our Muslim brothers and sisters who resort to violence, will take these verses into consideration.
Anti-Islamic people often use the following verses to justify the stereotype that Islam is a religion of violence and intolerance, which was spread by the sword. The explanations here were aided by Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s commentary on the Holy Quran.
Sura 8.12 “Remember thy lord has inspired the angels with the message. Give firmness to the believers and instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite them above their necks and smite the fingertips of them.”
Sura 9.5 “When the sacred months have passed, kill the idolaters whereever you find them.”
Sura 47.4 “When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads. Untill you have made a wide slaughter among them tie up the remaining captives.”
Sura 8 is about a BATTLE – the Battle of Badr – not just some daily affair. A battles take two side to occur. Are you under the impression that while these ‘horrid’ Muslims were fighting, the enemies were simply standing there like good little peaceful men?
Sura 47 was revealed during the first year of Hijrah when the Muslims were under *threat of extinction* by invasion from Makkah.
Sura 9 is interesting. Non-Muslims almost invariably quote verse 5 but leave out verse 4 and 6. Why? Because verse 4 says, “But the treatises are not dissolved with those Pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have you subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for God Loves the righteous.”
And verse 6 says, “If one among the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the Word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure.”
So basically what has been done above is:
1. The background to each sura was shown. One cannot take a verse revealed for a battle and insist it is if for the daily affairs of Muslims.
2. It was shown how Non-muslims who wish to attack Islam, conveniently leave out verses before and after their quoted verse. Above, I have shown only one of the many examples.
Islamic teaches that there is One GOD. It stands to reason that more than one GOD would create disturbances in the creation as one god would vie for mastery over the creation over the other?!
Even Thomas Paine, (Accused of Atheism), professes the existence of GOD, but held allegiances to no doctrine of faith.
“It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God.”
-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
Every religion is good that teaches man to be good; and I know of none that instructs him to be bad.
Thomas Paine
Do not Christians secretly seek to establish a Theocracy in the USA?
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.
– Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791
What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.
– Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)
Yours in Liberty,
XXXX
comments? Thoughts? Are we in America judging Islam too harshly?
Jim in NC wrote:
Do not Christians secretly seek to establish a Theocracy in the USA?
Yeah; and 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the U.S. government, which everyone knows is run by Jews and their agents.
The italicized line above sums up your whole sorry defense of the religion of Islam. It is this hostility towards Christians and Jews in particular, and all non-Muslims (infidels) in general that is the backbone of the religion of your “prophet.” The problem with Islam is Islam. Besides, the obvious answer to your assertion concerning Islam’s establishment of justice, freedom and equality 1200 years prior (1200 years, huh? Whoa!) to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution is this, where are the Islamic states that incorporate these fundamental principles of liberty into their laws and governing institutions? I submit to you, sir, that the Bible, from whence your illiterate prophet extracted and subsequently pulverized many of the stories contained in the Koran, predates both the U.S. Constitution and the establishment of the Islamic religion.
Furthermore, Christians have been a large and dominating influence on this continent for the better part of four centuries, and we’ve yet to establish a Christian theocracy here in spite of all of our secretive, collaborative efforts to do so. We’ve also invited and empowered all manner of non-Christian foreigner in this country, including Muslims, which would seem to be counterproductive to our underlying purposes to establish a Christian theocracy. Hmmm.
Jim in NC.
If “the best of the best” live in S. Arabia and all those other so called “civilized” tribal nations then you are in a word of hurt. Good luck to you and yours. You are, as the Hebrews would say, a PUTZ.
the gov./corporations capitalize on everything for personal and global gain/control.
i am not for owo.
Thanks for posting this important and relevant document.