Tea Party of Cumberland County Tennessee

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote..." -Ben Franklin

Purpose: To attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

Cumberland County

Scheduled Events for January 2012*

Thursday, January 5th, Republican Women’s Club Monthly Meeting.

Time: 5:00 PM

Place: Republican Headquarters (Click to view Map)

Saturday, January 7th, Republican Headquarters begins Opening each Saturday.

Time: 10:00 AM until 2:00 PM (unless snowing)

Place: Republican Headquarters (Click to view Map)

Plans also include opening the HQ one day during the week. Contact Marlys Pool for dates and times.

Sunday, January 8th, Debate Time: 8:00 AM (YES, 8:00 AM - scheduled to be broadcast on NBC)

Tuesday, January 10th, Monthly Tea Party Meeting.

Time: 6:00 PM. (Doors open at 5:30 PM)

Place: Community Complex. (Click for Map)

Thursday, January 12th, Upper Cumberland Republican Women’s Club

Time: Contact Sharon Riharb for time and location.

Saturday, January 14, 12:30 PM True The Vote Training Session 1 [1] (Location to be announced)

Saturday, January 21st, Monthly Constitution Class Meeting. (Change in date)

Time: 10:00 AM

Place: FFG United Methodist Church, 231 Westchester Drive, Choir Room

Monday, January 16th, Debate Time: 8:00 PM (scheduled to be broadcast on Fox News)

Tuesday, January 17 10:00 AM True The Vote Training Session 1 [1] Trinity Tabernacle Assembly of God

Thursday, January 19th Debate Time: TBA (scheduled to be broadcast on CNN)

Thursday, January 19, 2:00 PM True The Vote Training Session 1 [1] First National Bank in Crossville

Monday, January 23rd Debate Time: TBA (scheduled to be broadcast on NBC)

Tuesday, January 24 10:00 AM True The Vote Training Session 2 [1] Trinity Tabernacle Assembly of God

Tuesday, January 24th Cumberland County Republican Party Monthly Meeting.

Time: 6:00 PM (Doors open at 5:00 PM)

Place: Community Complex. (Click to view Map)

*Meal will be served at 5:30 PM for $8. Meeting to start at 6:00 PM.

Thursday, January 26th Debate Time: TBA (scheduled to be broadcast on CNN)

Thursday, January 26 2:00 PM True The Vote Training Session 2 [1] First National Bank in Crossville

Saturday, January 28 10:00 AM True The Vote Training Session 2 [1] (Location to be announced)

Monday, January 30th, Plateau Patriots will host a third County Forum

Time: 5:30 PM, doors will open at 5:00 PM.

Place: Stone Memorial High School. The topic, Cumberland County Schools, will be of interest to parents and voters alike since more than half of the Cumberland County Budget is allocated to county schools. Check the newspaper for details on the speakers. Also, a Question and Answer Period will follow. If there are questions please feel free to contact Sarah Southall at 931-707-7173 or southall.sarah@gmail.com.

New Class – Beginning on June 12th, Dave Robertson is starting a class where you can learn about Islam. The first class will be on Sunday, June 12th at Central Baptist Church at 5:30 PM. Future classes will be discussed at this meeting. You can visit his website at: The Crescent or The Cross or email Dave Robertson at politicallyincorrect@thecrescentorthecross.com.

Tea Party Teams that energize
volunteer efforts to make an impact!
To join a team, click the menu item on the left.

Liberals held sway in Tennessee for 140 years, and laws repugnant to the U.S.A. and Tennessee Constitutions were passed during that period. Political practices inconsistent with a Republican form of government, which is guaranteed by the Tennessee State Constitution, crept in unabated during that time. You had 140 years to disprove yourselves.

We don't want you punished for past wrongs... we demand a reformation back to the ideals of the American Framers, and to move forward from there. We want to be of assistance. We are only doing OUR due diligence, and expect the same of YOU... or you can expect to be voted out of office in the next election. We have that kind of clout, and you know it.

Americans today literally don't know which way is up! Many or most of you had little or no education on how government operates. We expect you to lok at BOTH sides of the argument.

Over time, party affiliation within families became like the family religious affiliation... and people mindlessly followed the "family tradition." Over time, the old liberal guard became the new conservative guard.

The vast majority of Black slaves, freed by Lincoln, and became Republicans in "The Party of Lincoln" en masse after The Civil War. When that political party became unresponsive to their needs, most switched parties... and most live in poverty, having been kept ignorant of what makes good government work, and not work.

Now, as our Framers feared (and predicted) globalist forces or tyranny took control of our banks and our schools. The they corrupted our elected leaders. Now they want you to be led back into feudal slavery. They want you to believe that a failed system, Socialism, can somehow be installed here in America. How stupid are we? ALL the Socialist/Communist nations of Europe and Asia are moving back toward Capitalism... and we stupid Americans are moving toward Communism and a police state! The aim of Socialism is to lead to Communism. History may repeat itself. If they succeed, you will simply be liquidated.

Here is the solution:

Virtue

Modern Americans have long since forgotten the heated and sometimes violent debates which took place in the thirteen colonies between 1775 and 1776 over the issue of morality. For many thousands of Americans the big question of independence hung precariously on the single, slender thread of whether or not the people were sufficiently "virtuous and moral" to govern themselves. Self-government was generally referred to as "republicanism," and it was universally acknowledged that a corrupt and selfish people could never make the principles of republicanism operate successfully. As Franklin wrote:

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." (Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 9:569.)

George Washington later praised the American Constitution as the "palladium of human rights," but pointed that it could survive only "so long as there shall remain virtue in the body of the people." (Saul K. Padover, editor, The Washington Papers, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1955, p. 244.)

Morality is identified with the Ten Commandments and obedience to the Creator's mandate for "right conduct," but the early Americans identified "public virtue" as a very special quality of human maturity in character and service closely akin to the Golden Rule. As a modern historian epitomized it:

"In a Republic, however, each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole. This willingness of the individual to sacrifice his private interest for the good of the community -- such patriotism or love of country -- the eighteenth century termed public virtue.... The eighteenth century mind was thoroughly convinced that a popularly based government 'cannot be supported without virtue'." (Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1969, p. 68.)

The people had an instinctive thirst for independence, but there remained a haunting fear that they might not be "good enough" to make it work. These self-doubts were actually the eye of the hurricane during those final pre-revolutionary years when Americans were trying to decide whether they had the moral capacity for self-government. Great names of later years were among the doubters in those pre-revolutionary days. John Jay, Robert Morris, Robert Livingston, and even John Dickinson were among them. Their doubts gradually diminished as their patriotic indignation was aroused by the harsh and sometimes brutal policies of the British crown. They were also moved by the powerful expressions of faith and confidence pouring forth from men of "admired virtue" such as John Adams, George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, and Josiah Quincy. Spirits continued to rise so that by the spring of 1776, thousands of confident voices were heard throughout the colonies affirming that there was sufficient "public virtue" in the people to make republican principles work successfully.

Our nation is at a crossroads that once crossed can never be reversed. Will a virtuous people prevail? Tomorrow some of Thomas Paine's thoughts.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. –Thomas Paine

"But neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be choseninto any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." (Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:22.)

He then went on to say that public officials should not be chosen if they are lacking in experience, training, proven virtue, and demonstrated wisdom. He said the task of the electorate is to choose those whose "fidelity has been tried in the nicest and tenderest manner, and has been ever firm and unshaken." (Ibid.)

A favorite scripture of the day was Proverbs 29:2, which says: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

The Founders recognized human nature for what it is -- a mixture of good and evil. They reasoned that if people are to govern themselves and have the best possible government, then a political process should be developed through which the wisest, the most experienced, and the most virtuous can be precipitated to the surface and elected to public office.

Actually, mankind has no sensible option. As Madison said:"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (The Federalist Papers, No. 51, p. 322.)

Unfortunately, that utopian dream will never be possible in view of the obvious limitations of human nature. The nextbest thing is to take the most promising element in society and draft them into public service. What the Founders hoped to do was develop a spirit of public virtue by having leaders of strong private virtue. It would be a new kind of "freemen aristocracy" or "natural aristocracy" which would be open to all, but inheritable by none. Every leader would have to rise to his high office on personal merit, not the wealth and reputation of his ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson typified the Founders' philosophy of social responsibility. They strongly believed that the best citizens should accept major roles in public life. They believed people with talent and demonstrated qualities of leadership should have the same sense of duty as that which Washington exhibited when he allowed himself to be called out of retirement three separate times to serve the country.

Jefferson referred to such people as the nation's "natural aristocracy." He said it was an aristocracy of virtue, talent, and patriotism without which the nation could not survive. I concur!

Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you. –Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson felt it should be the goal of the whole nation to use education and every other means to stimulate and encourage those citizens who clearly exhibited a special talent for public service. He felt one of the greatest threats to the new government would be the day when the best qualified people refused to undertake the tedious, arduous, and sometimes unpleasant task of filling important public offices. In 1779 he said:

"For promoting the public happiness, those persons whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens; and they should be called to that charge without regard to ... birth, or other accidental condition or circumstance." (Ford, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 9:425.)

Capturing the Founders' Perspective on "Politics" – Something we must truly do today!

The natural tendency of nearly all people is to encourage others to run for office, but not get involved themselves. The Founders knew we could never enjoy strong self-government unless this general perspective were changed. They wanted it to be counted an honor to be drafted into "politics." A popular quotation from Cicero emphasized this theme. He had said: "For there is really no other occupation in which human virtue approaches more closely the august function of the gods than that of founding new States or preserving those already in existence." (Quoted in Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers, p. 128.)

American history will show that both Samuel Adams and his younger cousin, John Adams, sacrificed their fortunes to serve in politics. They both considered politics to be a "divine science." John Adams had this to say about the high calling of a servant of the people in politics:

"Politics are the divine science, after all. How is it possible that any man should ever think of making it subservient to his own little passions and mean private interests? Ye baseborn sons of fallen Adam, is the end of politics a fortune, a family, a gilded coach, a train of horses, and a troop of livery servants, balls at Court, splendid dinners and suppers? Yet the divine science of politics is at length in Europe reduced to a mechanical system composed of these materials." (Quoted in Koch, The American Enlightenment, p. 189.)

Some might feel inclined to smile at such a puritanical ideology in a practical politician such as John Adams, but he had a ready answer for the skeptic. Said he: "What is to become of an independent statesman, one who will bow the knee to no idol, who will worship nothing as a divinity but truth, virtue, and his country?

I will tell you; he will be regarded more by posterity than those who worship hounds and horses; and although he will not make his own fortune, he will make the fortune of his country." (Ibid.; italics added.)

A desire to be observed, considered, esteemed, praised, beloved, and admired by his fellows is one of the earliest as well as the keenest dispositions discovered in the heart of man. John Adams

A modern American cannot read the writings of men such as Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, or Washington without feeling a certain sense of pride that the United States produced and had available leaders of this supreme quality to launch the first "noble experiment" for freedom in modern times.

However, one important question remains: "How are such qualities of superior character and virtue developed inhuman beings?" The answer will be found in the writings of the Founders themselves. As we shall see in the numerous quotations appearing in the following pages, the beliefs of the Founders were based on careful study. They had also been carefully taught. In their respective churches, families, schools, or elsewhere, they had been allowed to acquire a comprehensive system of strong, basic beliefs. Throughout their writings and speeches, the Founders project themselves as positive believers in a broad spectrum of fundamental precepts which they called "self-evident truths."

These beliefs are remarkable in and of themselves, but the fact that they all seem to have shared them in common is even more remarkable.

It is interesting that their acceptance of these beliefs necessarily required that they categorically reject some of the more popular intellectual fads which were widespread in Europe during their day. It further required that they reject some of the less tenable positions of certain popular denominations; even denominations to which some of them belonged.

What we are seeing in the Founders, therefore, is a group of very independent, tough-minded men whose beliefs were based on empirical evidence and the light of careful reasoning. Even their acceptance of things which are not seen -- the existence of the Creator, for example – were based on observable phenomena and precise reasoning.

The well-known psychologist Abraham Maslow, in his book entitled The Third Force, concludes after extensive testing that a mind-set based on a spectrum of well-established beliefs, such as the Founders possessed, definitely produces a higher quality of human behavior and a more positive adjustment to the stresses of life.

No doubt Cicero would respond to such a conclusion with the observation that these results should have been expected. Beliefs based on reason and self-evident truth bring a human being into harmony with natural law and the eternal realities of the cosmic universe.

Tomorrow we will begin to examine what the Founders had to say about some of their better-known basic beliefs. It may suprise you!

Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. –John Adams

The key words were sound religion. Several of the Founders have left us with descriptions of their basic religious beliefs, (you can read more for yourself in "Original Intent" by Dave Barton) and Benjamin Franklin summarized those which he felt were the "fundamental points in all sound religion." This is the way he said it in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University:

"Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion." (Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 10:84.)

The five points of fundamental religious belief expressed or implied in Franklin's statement are these:

1. There exists a Creator who made all things, and mankind should recognize and worship Him.

2. The Creator has revealed a moral code of behavior for happy living which distinguishes right from wrong.

Wow, what if they were taught in schools today? All five of these tenets run through practically all of the Founders' writings. These are the beliefs which the Founders sometimes referred to as the "religion of America," and they felt these Fundamentals were so important in providing "good government and the happiness of mankind" that they wanted them taught in the public schools along with morality and knowledge.

We have allowed our education system to be run by progressives for too many years. Many of us were taught "their history" not the true history of our country. Departments of Education at national, state, and local levels should be abolished and the responsibility of teaching our children should be ours. It might even help balance the budget. What do you think?

Work as if you were to live a hundred years. Pray as if you were to die tomorrow.—Benjamin Franklin

John Adams called these tenets the "general principles" on which the American civilization had been founded. (Letter to Jefferson cited in Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 13:293.)

Thomas Jefferson called these basic beliefs the principles "in which God has united us all." (Ibid., 14:198.) From these statements it is obvious how significantly the Founders looked upon the fundamental precepts of religion and morality as the cornerstones of a free government. This gives additional importance to the previously quoted warning of Washington when he said:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?" (Basic American Documents, pp. 108-109.)

Washington issued this solemn warning because in France, shortly before he wrote his Farewell Address (1796), the promoters of atheism and amorality had seized control and turned the French Revolution into a shocking blood bath of wild excesses and violence. Washington obviously never wanted anything like that to happen in the United States.

Therefore he had said: "In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness [religion and morality]." (Ibid.)

A word from the past about the progressive movement --Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. –George Washington

"On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things." (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols., 1840, Vintage Books, New York, 1945, 1:319.)

He described the situation as follows: "Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions.... I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? -- but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society." (Ibid., p. 316.)

Our current President and what socialist leadership is left after November 2010 believe the European model is best, however, even in the 1800's De Tocqueville knew that European Philosophers Were Wrong.

In Europe, it had been popular to teach that religion and liberty were enemies of each other. De Tocqueville saw the very opposite happening in America. He wrote:

"The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained in a very simple manner the gradual decay of religious faith. Religious zeal, said they, must necessarily fail the more generally liberty is established and knowledge diffused.

Unfortunately, the facts by no means accord with their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equaled by their ignorance and debasement; while in America, one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world, the people fulfill with fervor all the outward duties of religion." (Ibid., p. 319.)

De Tocqueville pointed out that "in France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united." 13 He then pointed out that the early American colonists "brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This contributed powerfully to the establishment of a republic and a democracy in public affairs; and from the beginning, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved." (Ibid., p. 311.)

However, he emphasized the fact that this religious undergirding of the political structure was a common denominator of moral teachings in different denominations and not the political pressure of some national church hierarchy. Said he:

"The sects [different denominations] that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God.... All the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.... There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America." (Ibid., p. 314.)

Our President has said that we are no longer a Judeo Christian society. I pray he is wrong because if we are not, we are destined to live bad history over again.

Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.—Alexis de Tocqueville

The Clergy Fueled the Flame of Freedom, Stressed Morality, and Alerted the Citizenry To Dangerous Trends

The role of the churches to perpetuate the social and political culture of the United States provoked the following comment from de Tocqueville:

"The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.... I have known of societies formed by Americans to send out ministers of the Gospel into the new Western states, to found schools and churches there, lest religion should be allowed to die away in those remote settlements, and the rising states be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people from whom they came." (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols., 1840, Vintage Books, New York, 1945, 1:317.)

De Tocqueville discovered that while the clergy felt it would be demeaning to their profession to become involved in partisan politics, they nevertheless believed implicitly in their duty to keep a message of religious principles and moral values flowing out to the people as the best safeguard for America's freedom and political security. In one of de Tocqueville's most frequently quoted passages, he stated:

"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless

prairies, and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." (Quoted in Ezra Taft Benson, God, Family, Country: Our Three Great Loyalties, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, 1975, p. 360.)

When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.---Alexis de Tocqueville

Jefferson and Madison were undoubtedly the foremost among the Founders in pushing through the first of these statutes in Virginia. Jefferson sought to disestablish the official church of Virginia in 1776, but this effort was not completely successful until ten years later. Meanwhile, in 1784, Patrick Henry was so enthusiastic about strengthening the whole spectrum of Christian churches that he introduced a bill "Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion." (This document is reproduced in the supplementary appendix of Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, p. 72.)

It was the intention of this bill to provide that each taxpayer would designate "to what society of Christians" his money should go. The funds collected by this means were to make "provision for a minister or teacher of the Gospel ... or the providing places of divine worship [for that denomination], and to none other use whatever...." (Ibid., p.94.)

Madison immediately reacted with his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance" against religious assessments, in which he proclaimed with the greatest possible energy the principle that the state government should not prefer one religion over another. Equality of religions was the desired goal. He wrote:

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same case any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? ... The bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law." (William C. Rives and Philip R. Fendall, eds., Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, 4 vols., J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1865, 1:163-164.

By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt.—James Madison

It is clear from the writings of the Founders as well as the Commentaries of Justice Story that the First Amendment was designed to eliminate forever the interference of the federal government in any religious matters within the various states. As Madison stated during the Virginia ratifying convention:

"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation." (Elliot, Debates in the State Conventions, 3:330.)

Jefferson took an identical position when he wrote the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

"It is true, as a general principle, ... that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the states, or to the people." (Mortimer J. Adler et al., eds.,

The Annals of America, 18 vols., Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1968, 4:63.)

The Supreme Court as Well as Congress Excluded from Jurisdiction over Religion In the Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson also made it clear that the federal judicial system was likewise prohibited from intermeddling with religious matters within the states. He wrote:

"Special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...', thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others; and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religions, ARE WITHHELD FROM THE COGNIZANCE OF FEDERAL TRIBUNALS." (Ibid.; emphasis added.)

Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor - over each other.—Thomas Jefferson

In recent years the Supreme Court has undertaken to use this metaphor as an excuse for meddling in the religious issues arising within the various states. It has not only presumed to take jurisdiction in these disputes, but has actually forced the states to take the same hands-off position toward religious matters even though this restriction originally applied only to the federal government. This obvious distortion of the original intent of Jefferson (when he used the metaphor of a "wall" separating church and state) becomes entirely apparent when the statements and actions of Jefferson are examined in their historical context.

It will be recalled that Jefferson and Madison were anxious that the states intervene in religious matters so as to provide for equality among all religions, and that all churches or religions assigned preferential treatment should be disestablished from such preferment. They further joined with the other Founders in expressing an anxiety that ALL religions be encouraged in order to promote the moral fiber and religious tone of the people. This, of course, would be impossible if there were an impenetrable "wall" between church and state on the state level. Jefferson's "wall" was obviously intended only for the federal government, and the Supreme Court application of this metaphor to the states has come under severe criticism. (Dallin Oaks, ed., The Wall Between Church and State, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1963, pp. 2-3.)

In Thomas Jefferson's second inaugural address, he virtually signaled the states to press forward in settling their religious issues since it was within their jurisdiction and not that of the federal government:

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." (Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:378.)

Jefferson, along with the other Founders, believed that it was within the power of the various states to eliminate those inequities which existed between the various faiths, and then pursue a policy of encouraging religious institutions of all kinds because it was in the public interest to use their influence to provide the moral stability needed for "good government and the happiness of mankind." (Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Article 3.)

Jefferson's resolution for disestablishing the Church of England in Virginia was not to set up a wall between the state and the church but simply, as he explained it, for the purpose of "taking away the privilege and preeminence of one religious sect over another, and thereby [establishing] ...EQUAL RIGHTS AMONG ALL." (Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 19 vols. by 1974, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., 1950, 1:531, note 1; emphasis added.)

For well documented facts on the Constitution and the "Wall" see Dr. David Barton's "Original Intent." It is excellent resource with well documented reference material.

When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.—Thomas Jefferson

The Creator would also reflect a fine sense of right and wrong, and also a sense of indignation or even anger with those who violate the laws of "right" action. In other words, God has a strong sense of "justice." Remorse for wrong also arouses a sense of compassion in the Creator, just as it does in human beings whom he designed. There are other attributes of man which human beings must necessarily share with their Creator if man is "made in the image of God." One would be a sense of humor. The Creator must also be a great artist on the visual plane.

Everything the Creator organizes is in terms of beauty through color, form, and contrasts. Obviously, man can enjoy only to a finite degree the capacity of his Creator to appreciate the vast panorama of sensory satisfaction which we call "beauty."

So, as John Locke says, there are many things man can know about God. And because any thoughtful person can gain an appreciation and conviction of these many attributes of the Creator, Locke felt that an atheist has failed to apply his divine capacity for reason and observation. The American Founding Fathers agreed with Locke.

They considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying ALL self-evident truth. It will be noted as we proceed through this study that every single self-evident truth enunciated by the Founders is rooted in the presupposition of a divine Creator.

The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure.—John Locke

These laws constituted a moral code clearly distinguishing right from wrong. This concept was not new with the Founders. This was the entire foundation of all religious cultures world-wide. It was particularly emphasized in the Judeo-Christian structure of the English law. No authority on the subject was more widely read than William Blackstone (1723-1780). He established the classes for the first law school at Oxford in 1753. His lectures on the English law were published in 1765 and were as widely read in America as they were in England.

In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone propounded the generally accepted idea that "when the Supreme Being formed the universe" he organized it and then "impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be." (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, ed. William Carey Jones, 2 vols., Bancroft-Whitney Co., San Francisco, 1916, 1:52.)

He then went on to say that the will of God which is expressed in the orderly arrangement of the universe is called "the law of nature," and that there are laws for "human" nature just as surely as they exist for the rest of the universe. He said the laws for human nature had been revealed by God, whereas the laws of the universe (natural law) must be learned through scientific investigation. (Ibib.,p. 64.) Blackstone stated that "upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human lives...." (Ibid., p. 65.)

As we shall see later, the attitude of the Founders toward God's law (both natural and revealed) gave early Americans a very high regard for the "law" as a social institution. They respected the sanctity of the law in the same way that it was honored among the Anglo-Saxons and by ancient Israel.

Thus, religion and the American institutions of freedom were combined. In fact, the Founders had taken the five truths we have already identified as "religion" and had built the whole Constitutional framework on top of them. The sanctity of civil rights and property rights, as well as the obligation of citizens to support the

Constitution in protecting their unalienable rights, were all based on these religious precepts. Therefore, having established the general principle that "without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained," we now turn to the specific principles on which this general concept was based.

All things were created by God, therefore upon Him all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsible.

The Founders vigorously affirm throughout their writings that the foundation of all reality is the existence of the Creator, who is the designer of all things in nature and the promulgator of all the laws which govern nature.

The Founders were in harmony with the thinking of John Locke as expressed in his famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In it Locke pointed out that it defies the most elementary aspects of reason and experience to presuppose that everything in existence developed as a result of fortuitous circumstance. The mind, for example, will not accept the proposition that the forces of nature, churning about among themselves, would ever produce a watch, or even a lead pencil, let alone the marvelous intricacies of the human eye, the ear, or even the simplest of the organisms found in nature. All these are the product of intelligent design and high-precision engineering.

Locke felt that a person who calls himself an "atheist" is merely confessing that he has never dealt with the issue of the Creator's existence. Therefore, to Locke an atheist would be to that extent "irrational," and out of touch with reality; in fact, out of touch with the most important and fundamental reality.

In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke insisted that everyone can know there is a divine Creator. It is simply a case of thinking about it. (Concerning Human Understanding, Great Books of the Western World, vol. 35, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1952, pp. 349-352.)

To begin with, each person knows that he exists. With Descartes each person can say, "Cogito ergo sum." With God, each person can say, "I AM!"

Furthermore, each person knows that he is something. He also knows that a something could not be produced by a nothing. Therefore, whatever brought man and everything else into existence also had to be something.

It follows that this something which did all of this organizing and arranging would have to be all-knowing to the full extent required for such an organization and arrangement.

This something would therefore have to be superior to everything which had resulted from this effort. This element of superiority makes this something the ultimate "good" for all that has been organized and arranged. In the Anglo-Saxon language, the word for supreme or ultimate good is "God."

I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.—John Locke

George Washington was typical of the Founders in this respect: Charles Bracelen Flood discovered in his research that during the Revolutionary War there were at least sixtyseven desperate moments when Washington acknowledged that he would have suffered disaster had not the hand of God intervened in behalf of the struggle for independence (odd for what modern history often calls a deists) . (Charles Bracelen Flood, Rise and Fight Again, Dodo, Mead & Co., New York, 1976, p. 377.)

After being elected President, Washington stressed these sentiments in his first inaugural address when he said:

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency." (Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 30:292.)

Madison was equally emphatic on this point when he contemplated the work of the Constitutional Convention and saw the guiding influence of God just as Washington had seen it on the battlefield. Said he:

"The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted ... with an unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." (The Federalist Papers, No. 37, pp. 230-231.)

From all of this it will be seen that the Founders were not indulging in any idle gesture when they adopted the motto, "In God we trust." Neither was it a matter of superfluous formality when they required that all witnesses who testify in the courts or before Congressional hearings must take an oath and swear or affirm before God that they will tel] the truth. As Washington pointed out in his Farewell

Address: "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?" (Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 35:229.) In fact, it was not at all uncommon, as Alexis de Tocqueville discovered, to look with the greatest precaution upon an individual who had no religious convictions. He wrote:

"While I was in America, a witness who happened to be called at the Sessions of the county of Chester (state of New York) declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit the evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all the confidence of the court in what he was about to say." (Alexis de Touqueville, Democracy in America, 1:317.)

In a note de Tocqueville added: The New York Spectator of August 23, 1831, related the fact in the following terms: "... The presiding judge remarked that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction [in law, that which gives binding force] of all testimony in a court of justice; and that he knew of no case in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief." (Ibid.)

A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.—James Madison

The answer is, they can't, except in three ways. They can only be TREATED as equals in the sight of God, in the sight of the law, and in the protection of their rights. In these three ways all men are created equal. It is the task of society, as it is with God, to accept people in all their vast array of individual differences, but treat them as equals when it comes to their role as human beings. As members of society, all persons should have their equality guaranteed in two areas.

"First, there is equality before the law. This means that every man's case is tried by the same law governing any particular case. Practically, it means that there are no different laws for different classes and orders of men [as there were in ancient times]. The definition of premeditated murder is the same for the millionaire as for the tramp. A corollary of this is that no classes are created or recognized by law.

"Second, the Declaration refers to an equality of rights.... Each man is equally entitled to his life with every other man; each man has an equal title to God given liberties along with every other." (Clarence Carson, The American Tradition, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1970, pp.112-113.)

John Adams was in France when Jean Jacques Rousseau was teaching that all men were designed to be equal in every way. Adams wrote:

"That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has.... But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids, by Brahmins, by priests of the immortal Lama, or by the self-styled philosophers of the French Revolution." (Quoted in Koch, The American Enlightenment, p. 222.)

Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.—John Adams

At the ballot box, to vote for the candidate of their choice. (Something America and Tennessee are seeing as a serious challenge today)

At the microphone or before the TV camera, to present views on the issues of the day.

At the tax collector's office, to pay no more than their fair share.(Tax reform is another serous challenge for Americans today)

Admittedly, equal rights have not been completely established in all of these areas, but the Founders struck a course which has thus far provided a better balance in administering the equality of rights than has occurred at any time in history. The breakdown occurs in connection with the treatment of minorities.

Minorities in any country consider themselves "outsiders" who want to become "insiders," As long as they are treated as outsiders they do not feel equal. The interesting part of it is that every ethnic group in the American society was once a minority. We are a nation of minorities!

There is no spot on the planet earth where so many different ethnic groups have been poured into the same milieu as in the United States. It was appropriate that

Two things are especially notable about this. First of all, it is remarkable that the Founders were able to establish a society of freedom and opportunity which would attract so many millions of immigrants. Secondly, it is even more remarkable that within two or three generations nearly all of these millions of immigrants became first-class citizens.

As we noted above, newcomers to any nation are not considered first-class citizens immediately. Human nature does not allow it. In some countries "outsiders" are still treated with hostility after they have resided in those countries for three or four hundred years. In the United States, immigrants or outsiders can become insiders much more rapidly. Nevertheless, the transition is painful.

God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.—Daniel Webster

This means learning the English language -- with an American dialect more or less; attaining the general norm of education -- which in America is fairly high; becoming economically independent -- which often means getting out of the ghetto; and becoming recognized as a social asset to the community -- which always takes time. Usually it requires far more time than the minority group can patiently endure.

But the impatience of a minority can be an advantage. It expedites their assimilation by motivating greater effort to gain acceptance. In the United States, as a result, many members of a minority group are assimilated in a single generation. Others must wait until the second generation, and a few are still struggling in the third. But these are the exceptions. They can't quite get across the culture gap. It is a fact of life in America, as everywhere else, that no ethnic group are going to be entirely comfortable or treated completely as equals in an adopted society until they have crossed the culture gap.

As mentioned yesterday, there is not a single ethnic group in the United States but what has been treated at one time or another as a minority, or less than first-class citizens.

The story of minorities in the United States is a fascinating tale. Beginning with the French in the 1500's and the English in the 1600's (and the Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Scots, and Irish in between), it was one grand conglomerate of tension, discrimination, malice, and sometimes outright persecution. But the miracle of it all is the fact that they fought side by side for freedom in the Revolutionary War, and all of them could boast of descendants in the White House or the Congress as the years passed by. So all of this became America -- a nation of minorities.

One of the best examples of minority adjustment under adverse circumstances is the American saga of the Japanese and Chinese.

The treatment they received is an embarrassment to modern Americans. They were not only shabbily treated, but sometimes they were treated brutally. (In certain situations this happened to other minorities as well.) But practically none of the Japanese and Chinese went home. They became domestics, field workers, and truck farmers; they ran laundries, worked for a pittance on railroads, ate their simple fare, and slept on bare boards. Meanwhile, they sent their children to school and endured their mistreatment with patience. By 1940 the Chinese were virtually assimilated and the Japanese had almost made it. Then came the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Within weeks the vast Japanese population in California had been hauled off to concentration camps in the Rocky Mountains. J. Edgar Hoover knew there were practically no espionage agents among them. The few security risks had already been identified and incarcerated. He vigorously protested the Japanese evacuation and so did many others, but all to no avail.

The Japanese could have been very bitter, but to the ultimate embarrassment and chagrin of those who had engineered this fiasco, they loyally mobilized their sons and sent them into the American armed services as volunteers! Japanese-American regiments were among the most decorated in World War II. They went into the military ranks under suspicion and resentment, but they came out in hero roles. A few years later the entire State of California was represented in the Senate by a Japanese-American.

But of all the minorities in America, the blacks have undertaken assimilation as first-class citizens under the greatest number of handicaps. Many early political leaders of the United States, including Abraham Lincoln, were fearful the blacks might never achieve complete adjustment because of the slavery culture in which the first few generations were raised.

Nevertheless, freedom and education brought a whole new horizon of hope to the blacks within three generations. Tens of thousands of them hurdled the culture gap, and soon the blacks in other countries saw their ethnic cousins in the United States enjoying a higher standard of living than blacks in any part of the world. In fact, by 1970 a black high school student in Alabama or Mississippi had a better opportunity to get a college education than a white student in England.

Providing equality for the blacks has never been approached with any degree of consensus. Some felt that with education and job opportunities the blacks could leap the culture gap just as other minorities had done. Others felt they should be made the beneficiaries of substantial government gratuities. Experience soon demonstrated, however, that government gratuities are as corrupting and debilitating to blacks as they are to the Indians or any other minorities. The blacks themselves asked for equal opportunity at the hiring hall. Thus, the trend began to shift in the direction which no doubt the Founders such as Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin would have strongly approved.

After the Constitution was adopted in 1789, Americans added four amendments to make certain that everyone, including racial minorities, could enjoy equal rights. These amendments are as follows:

The Fifteenth and the Nineteenth Amendments to provide universal voting rights regardless of race, color, or sex.

The Founders distinguished between equal rights and other areas where equality is impossible. They recognized that society should seek to provide equal opportunity but not expect equal results; provide equal freedom but not expect equal capacity; provide equal rights but not equal possessions; provide equal protection but not equal status; provide equal educational opportunities but not equal grades.

They knew that even if governmental compulsion were used to force its citizens to appear equal in material circumstances, they would immediately become unequal the instant their freedom was restored to them. As Alexander Hamilton said:

"Inequality would exist as long as liberty existed.... It would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself." (Harold C. Syrett et al., eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 19 vols. by 1973, Columbia University Press, New York, 1961, 4:218.)

Nevertheless, there are some who insist that people do not have equal rights unless they have "equal things." The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with this proposition and set forth their belief concerning it in the next principle. Equal Rights Not Equal Things.

Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.—Alexander Hamilton

In fact, it was soon discovered that the new industrial age required large quantities of private funds in order to build factories, purchase complicated machinery and tools, and provide millions of jobs which had never existed before.

The Founders felt that America would become a nation dominated by a prosperous middle class with a few people becoming rich. As for the poor, the important thing was to insure the freedom to prosper so that no one would be locked into the poverty level the way people have been in all other parts of the world.

It was realized, of course, that some would prosper more than others. That is inevitable as long as there is liberty. Some would prosper because of talent, some because of good fortune, some because of an inheritance, but most would prosper because of hard work.

The entire American concept of "freedom to prosper" was based on the belief that man's instinctive will to succeed in a climate of liberty would result in the whole people prospering together. It was thought that even the poor could lift themselves through education and individual effort to become independent and self-sufficient.

The idea was to maximize prosperity, minimize poverty, and make the whole nation rich. Where people suffered the loss of their crops or became unemployed, the more fortunate were to help. And those who were enjoying "good times" were encouraged to save up in store for the misfortunes which seem to come to everybody someday. Hard work, frugality, thrift, and compassion became the key words in the American ethic.

What happened in America under these principles was remarkable in every way. Within a short time the Americans, as a people, were on the way to becoming the most prosperous and best-educated nation in the world (which was amazing to de Tocqueville when he arrived in 1831). They were also the freest people in the world. Eventually, the world found that they were also the most generous people on earth. And all this was not because they were Americans. The Founders believed these same principles would work for any nation. The key was using the government to protect equal rights, not to provide equal things. As previously mentioned, Samuel Adams said the ideas of a welfare state were made unconstitutional:

"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of the wealth], and a community of goods [central ownership of all the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." (Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:154.)

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.—Samuel Adams

Franklin wrote a whole essay on the subject and told one of his friends, "I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor [in England] is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness. We have followed your example, and begin now to see our error, and, I hope, shall reform it." (Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 10:64.)

A survey of Franklin's views on counter-productive compassion might be summarized as follows:

1. Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counter-productive. (Ibid., 5:538.)

2. Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter-productive. (Ibid., 5:123.)

3. Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter-productive. (Ibid., 3:135.)

4. Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counter-productive. (Ibid., 3:136-37.)

Nevertheless, the Founders recognized that it is a mandate of God to help the poor and underprivileged. It is interesting how they said this should be done.

Franklin wrote: "To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good." (Ibid.,3:135.)

Nearly all of the Founders seem to have acquired deep convictions that assisting those in need had to be done through means which might be called "calculated" compassion. Highlights from their writings suggest the following:

2. Give the poor the satisfaction of "earned achievement" instead of rewarding them without achievement.

3. Allow the poor to climb the "appreciation ladder" -- from tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to comfortable houses.

4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.

5. Strictly enforce the scale of "fixed responsibility." The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is the family; then the church; next the community; finally the county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state.

Under no circumstances is the federal government to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor.

No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare.

By excluding the national government from intervening in the local affairs of the people, the Founders felt they were protecting the unalienable rights of the people from abuse by an over-aggressive government. But just what are "unalienable" rights? This brings us to our next subject-- Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid and other progressive lairs…"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest."—Benjamin Franklin

"The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which ... teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property....

"And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another." (John Locke, Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, Great Books of the Western World, vol. 35, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, 1952, p.)

The substantive nature of those rights which are inherent in all mankind was described by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." (Commentaries, 1:93.)

In other words, we may do something ourselves to forfeit the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, but no one else can take those rights from us without being subject to God's justice. This is what makes certain rights unalienable.

They are inherent rights given to us by the Creator. That is why they are called natural rights.

We also have certain other rights called vested rights which are created by the community, state, or nation for our protection or well-being. However, these can be changed any time the lawmakers feel like it. An example of a vested right would be the right to go hunting during certain seasons. Or the right to travel on the public highway. Notice that the government can change both of these "rights" or prohibit them altogether. The region could be declared off-limits for hunting. The highway could be closed. But the government could not pass a law to destroy all babies under the age of two, or lock up everybody with blonde hair. In the one case it would be destroying the unalienable right to life, and in the other case it would be destroying the unalienable right to liberty. A person can lose his liberty through his own misbehavior, but not because he has blonde hair!

It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth.—John Locke

All of the Unalienable Rights

When the Founders adopted the Declaration of Independence, they emphasized in phrases very similar to those of Blackstone that God has endowed all mankind "with certain unalienable rights, that AMONG these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Let us identify some of the unalienable or natural rights which the Founders knew existed but did not enumerate in the Declaration of Independence:

The right to provide nature's necessities -- air, food, water, clothing, and shelter.

It was very common among the Founders to express their sentiments concerning man's unalienable rights in almost the same language as Jefferson. Here are the words of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted by the Virginia assembly June 12, 1776 (before the Declaration of Independence!):

"All men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." (Annals of America, 2:432.)

Notice that the words of the Declaration of Independence are very similar when it says, "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."

Some scholars have wondered just what Jefferson mean by "the pursuit of happiness," but the meaning of this phrase was well understood when it was written. Perhaps John Adams said it even more clearly: "All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." (George A. Peek, Jr., ed., The Political Writings of John Adams, Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1954, p. 96.)

I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.—John Adams

"And these [great natural rights] may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security; the right of personal liberty; and the right of private property; because as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man's natural free will, but by an infringement or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense." (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:219-220; emphasis added.)

The protection of these rights was later carried over into the constitutions of the various states. Here is how the Constitution of Pennsylvania stated it:

"Article I, Section 1. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness." (Quoted in Judson A. Crane,

Over a century ago, Frederic Bastiat, who was trying to preserve freedom in France, wrote that man's unalienable rights are actually those which relate to life itself and that the preservation of those rights is primarily a matter of self-preservation. He wrote:

"We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life--physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. The process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

"Life, faculties, production -- in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws [for the protection of them] in the first place." (Frederic Bastiat, The Law, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1974], pp.5-6.)

But on what basis are the unalienable rights of mankind to be protected? This brings us to the principle which is a result to the one we have just discussed.

No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.—William Blackstone

William Blackstone pointed out that the Creator is not only omnipotent (all-powerful), "... but as He is also a Being of infinite wisdom. He has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things ... These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all His dispensations conforms; and which He has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such, among others, are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due." (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:59-60.)

Blackstone also said it was necessary for God to disclose these laws to man by direct revelation:

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity." (Ibid., 1:64.)

An analysis of the essential elements of God's code of divine law reveals that it is designed to promote, preserve, and protect man's unalienable rights. This divine pattern of law for human happiness requires a recognition of God's supremacy over all things; that man is specifically forbidden to attribute God's power to false gods; that the name of God is to be held in reverence, and every oath taken in the name of God is to be carried out with the utmost fidelity, otherwise the name of God would be taken in vain; that there is also a requirement that one day each week be set aside for the study of God's law; that it is also to be a day of worship and the personal renewing of one's commitment to obey God's law for happy living; that there are also requirements to strengthen family ties by children honoring parents and parents maintaining the sanctity of their marriage and not committing adultery after marriage; that human life is also to be kept sacred; that he who willfully and wantonly takes the life of another must forfeit his own; that a person shall not lie; that a person shall not steal; that every person must be willing to work for the things he desires from life and not covet and scheme to get the things which belong to his neighbor.

These principles will be immediately recognized as the famous Ten Commandments. There are many additional laws set forth in the Bible which clarify and define these principles.

Men was formed for society, and is neither capable of living alone, nor has the courage to do it.—William Blackstone

There are two kinds of duties -- public and private. Public duties relate to public morality and are usually supported by local or state ordinances which can be enforced by the police power of the state. Private duties are those which exist between the individual and his Creator. These are called principles of private morality. The only enforcement agency is the self-discipline of the individual himself. William Blackstone was referring to public and private morality when he said:

Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself (as drunkenness, or the like), they then become by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them.... Public sobriety is a relative duty [relative to other people], and therefore enjoined by our laws; private sobriety is an absolute duty, which, whether it be performed or not, human tribunals can never know; and therefore they can never enforce it by any civil sanction. (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:208.)

In a sense we could say that our unalienable duties, both public and private, are an inherent part of Natural Law. They constitute a responsibility imposed on each individual to respect the absolute rights or unalienable rights of others.

Here are some of the more important responsibilities which the Creator has imposed on every human being of normal mental capacity:

1. The duty to honor the supremacy of the Creator and his laws. (As Blackstone states, the Creator's law is the supreme law of the world: "This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this...." [Ibid., Introduction, sec. 2, par. 39.])

6. The duty of parents and elders to protect, teach, feed, clothe, and provide shelter for children.

9. The duty to provide insofar as possible for the needs of the helpless -- the sick, the crippled, the injured, the poverty-stricken.

10. The duty to honorably perform contracts and covenants both with God and man.

16. The duty not to promote or participate in the vices which destroy personal and community life.

17. The duty to perform civic responsibilities -- vote, assist public officials, serve in official capacities when called upon, stay informed on public issues, volunteer where needed.

18. The duty not to aid or abet those involved in criminal or anti-social activities.

So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.—William Blackstone

It will be recalled that God's revealed law provided true "justice" by requiring the criminal to completely restore the property he had stolen or to otherwise pay the damages for losses he had caused. It was the law of "reparation" -- repairing the damage. In addition, the criminal had to pay his victim punitive damages for all the trouble he had caused. This was also to remind him not to do it again.

This system of justice through reparation was practiced by the ancient Israelites and also the Anglo-Saxons. In recent years a number of states have begun to adopt the "reparation" system. This requires the judge to call in the victim and consult with him or her before passing sentence.

This discussion includes the possibility of the criminal's working to pay back the damages he caused his victim. If the criminal is too irresponsible to be trusted to get a job and repay his victim, then he is given a heavy prison term with the provision that he cannot be considered for parole until he will guarantee full cooperation in repayment to his victim.

The State of Utah recently adopted such a law. Judges are required to have offenders indemnify their victims for damages wherever possible. A copy of this law may be obtained from the Secretary of State, Utah Capitol Building, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104.

In some states, the victims of criminal activities may apply to the state for damages. This most unfortunate policy is a counter-productive procedure which encourages crime rather than deters it. It encourages a bandit to say to his victim, "Don't worry, mister. You'll get it all back from the state."

Now we must respond to one final question concerning God's revealed laws of "true justice": What if a law is passed by Congress or some legislature which is contrary to God's law? What then? Life becomes must simpler when you trust in our Creator God.

Rufus King (March 24, 1755 – April 29, 1827) was an American lawyer, politician, and diplomat. He was a delegate for Massachusetts to the Continental Congress. He also attended the Constitutional Convention and was one of the signers of the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia

This is the law of God by which He makes His way known to man and is paramount to all human control.—Rufus King

During the 1600's, the royal families of England did everything in their power to establish the doctrine that they governed the people by "divine right of kings." In other words, it was declared a "God-given right."

King Charles II beheaded Algernon Sidney in 1683 for saying that there is no divine right of kings to rule over the people. (I am surprised we have not had any beheadings since 2008) Sidney insisted that the right to rule is actually in the people and therefore no person can rightfully rule the people without their consent. In responding to the question, "Whether the supreme power be ... in the people," he replied: "I say, that they [including himself] who place the power [to govern] in a multitude, understand a multitude composed of freemen, who think it for their convenience to join together, and to establish such laws and rules as they oblige themselves to observe." (Algernon Sidney, Discourses on Government, 3 vols.,

The very year Algernon Sidney was beheaded, John Locke fled from England to Holland where he could say the same thing Sidney did, but from a safer distance. After the "Glorious Revolution" which he helped in plotting, Locke returned from Holland on the same boat as the new Queen (Mary). In 1890 he published his two famous essays on The Original Extent and End of Civil Government. In the second essay he wrote:

"In all lawful governments, the designation of the persons who are to bear rule being as natural and necessary a part as the form of the government itself, and that which had its establishment originally from the people ... all commonwealths, therefore, with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing and conveying the right to those who are to have any share in the public authority; and whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power by other ways than what the laws of the community have prescribed hath no right to be obeyed, though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved, since he is not the person the laws have appointed, and, consequently, not the person the people have consented to. Nor can such an usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title till the people are both at liberty to consent, and have actually consented, to allow and confirm in him the power he hath till then usurped." (John Locke, Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 70-71, par. 198; emphasis added.

An excellent man, like precious metal, is in every way invariable; A villain, like the beams of a balance, is always varying, upwards and downwards.—John Locke

There was no place for the idea of a divine right of kings in the thinking of the American Founders. They subscribed to the concept that rulers are servants of the people and all sovereign authority to appoint or remove a ruler rests with the people. They pointed out how this had been so with the Anglo-Saxons from the beginning.

Dr. Lovell describes how the tribal council, consisting of the entire body of freemen, would meet each month to discuss their problems and seek a solution through consensus. The chief or king (taken from the Anglo-Saxon word cyning--chief of the kinsmen) was only one among equals: "The chief owed his office to the tribal assembly, which selected and could also depose him. His authority was limited at every turn, and though he no doubt commanded respect, his opinion carried no more weight in the debates of the assembly than that of any freeman." (Lovell, English Constitutional and Legal History, p. 5.)

"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority." (The Federalist Papers, No. 22, p. 152.)

The divine right of the people to govern themselves and exercise exclusive power of sovereignty in their official affairs was expressed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in its Proclamation of January 23, 1776:

"It is a maxim that in every government, there must exist, somewhere, a supreme, sovereign, absolute, and uncontrollable power; but this power resides always in the body of the people; and it never was, or can be, delegated to one man, or a few; the great Creator has never given to men a right to vest others with authority over them, unlimited either in duration or degree." (Quoted by Hamilton Albert Long, Your American Yardstick, Your Heritage Books, Inc., Philadelphia, 1963, p. 167; emphasis added.)

James Madison discovered many people frightened by the Constitution when it was presented for ratification because they felt a federal government was being given autocratic authority. Madison declared:

"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the PEOPLE altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE." (The Federalist Papers, No. 46, p. 294; emphasis added.)

But even if it is acknowledged that the people are divinely endowed with the sovereign power to govern, what happens if elected or appointed officials usurp the authority of the people to impose a dictatorship or some form of abusive government on them (as they seem to do today)?

This brings us to the central principle on which the Founders based their famous Declaration of Independence.

The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical. But are the people educated enough and strong enough to make that decision?

A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.—James Madison

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by 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." (Annals of America, 2:447-48.)

Once again, we find John Locke setting forth this same doctrine in his classical Second Essay Concerning Civil Government:

"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.... [Therefore,] whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they [the officials of government] put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust THEY [the government officials] FORFEIT THE POWER THE PEOPLE HAD PUT INTO THEIR HANDS ... and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and ... provide for their own safety and security." (John Locke, Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 75-76, par. 222; emphasis added.)

However, it is important to recognize that the "government" was established by the majority of the people, and only a majority of the people can authorize an appeal to alter or abolish a particular establishment of government. As Locke pointed out:

"When any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority....

"And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it." (Ibid., p. 47, par. 96-97.)

"This being true, Locke pointed out that there is no right of revolt in an individual, a group, or a minority. Only in the majority. As he stated elsewhere:

"For if it [the unlawful act of government] reach no farther than some private men's cases, though they have a right to defend themselves ... yet the right to do so will not easily engage them in a contest ... it being as impossible for one or a few oppressed men to disturb the government where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it...."But if either these illegal acts have extended to the MAJORITY of the people, or if the mischief and oppression has light [struck] only on some few, but in such cases as the precedent and consequences seem to THREATEN ALL, and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them, their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too, HOW THEY WILL BE HINDERED FROM RESISTING ILLEGAL FORCE USED AGAINST THEM I CANNOT TELL." (Ibid., p. 73, par. 208-9; emphasis added.)

It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth.—John Locke

There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislative or decision making processes of government. This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken.

The Greeks tried to use democratic mass participation in the government of their city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny.

A democracy becomes increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows. A republic, on the other hand, governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely. James Madison contrasted these two systems when he wrote:

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.... "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." (The Federalist Papers, No. 10, p. 81.)

Madison later went on to point out how an expanding country like the United States could not possibly confine itself to the limitations of a democracy, but must rely upon a representative or republican form of government to protect the ever-expanding interests of its people. He said:

"In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region." (The Federalist Papers, No. 14, p. 100.)

A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both.—James Madison

Authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of "direct" expression.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or government by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

It will be recalled that James Madison was almost as strong in his own historical evaluation of past democracies. His words, as indicated above, were:

The government manual then proceeded to outline the characteristics of a republic, which all of the Founders had vigorously recommended over a pure democracy or any other form of government.

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard for consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

James Madison, as we mentioned earlier, had defined a republic along the same lines:

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during [the people's] pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior." (The Federalist Papers, No. 39, p. 241.)

In spite of these efforts to clarify the difference between a democracy and a republic, the United States began to be consistently identified in both the press and the school books as a "democracy." President Wilson helped contribute to the confusion when he identified World War I as the effort of the allied forces to "make the world safe for democracy." We still here this today.

President Wilson had surrounded himself with many of the early recruits to the ISS movement, and these may have encouraged the adoption of this slogan just as they later changed the name of their ISS organization to the League for Industrial Democracy.

A review of the roster of early ISS members will also reveal that by the 1930s the more brilliant young leaders of the movement from World War I days had risen to some of the most prestigious positions in politics, press, publishing houses, radio, academic circles, teacher-training colleges, the National Council of Churches, and just about every other major center of opinion-molding influence.

However, the intellectual development of the ISS members had not followed the same line of maturation. Some wanted the new "United States democracy" to become a socialist state with the people's consent (democratic socialism). Others wanted a "mixed system" of part socialism, part free-enterprise. Some were becoming disillusioned and had started swinging back to the Founders' traditional formula. A few had become enamored with the seizure of power by force and violence and had become leaders in the Communist party movement.

Nevertheless, all of them continued to refer to the United States as a democracy.

Following World War II, an interesting semantic transition began to take place in the American mind with reference to the use of the word "democracy." To begin with, the Communists, the National Socialists of Germany, and the Democratic Socialists throughout the rest of Europe had all misused the word "democracy" to the point where it had become virtually meaningless as a descriptive term. As a euphemism for socialism, the word had become totally innocuous.

Furthermore, socialism, whether spelled with a capital or small "s," had lost its luster. All over the world, socialist nations -- both democratic and communistic -- were drifting into deep trouble. All of them were verging on economic collapse in spite of tens of billions of dollars provided by the United States to prop them up. Some had acquired a notorious and abhorrent reputation because of the violence, torture, starvation, and concentration-camp tactics they had used against their own civilian population. All over the world, socialism had begun to emerge as an abject failure formula.

To the extent it was tried in America (without ever being called "socialism"), it had created colossal problems which the Founding Fathers' formula would have avoided. All of this created a subtle change in the American mind set. People continued referring to the United States as a "democracy," but mentally they had begun to equate "democracy" with the traditional Constitutional republic. It became popular to refer to American democracy as though it were quite different from everybody else's kind of democracy.

That is the status of the word "democracy" in the United States today. The majority of the people are instinctively leaning more and more toward the fundamental thinking of the Founders. They will probably end up calling the United States a "democratic republic," which is the term used by the followers of Thomas Jefferson.

By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt.—James Madison