Saturday, December 27, 2008

Spoiling the Party

Richard B. Boddie (center) has come up with a delightful idea:

You know what would REALLY perturb ( or p___ off) a whole lot of people, especially so-called Democrats?! How about this?

Bumbling George W. Bush, the puppet, could resign immediately -- before the new year, even. Then the shadowy Dick Cheney becomes the President. Now wouldn't THAT really perturb (or p___ off) those cocky liberals?!

Then Dirty Dick immediately appoints Condoleeza Rice as Vice President. Cheney then resigns weeks later, prior to the imminent overdone Obama coronation and (get this) CONDOLEEZA RICE then becomes THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT of the United States of America, and even more significant she is then also the first WOMAN President no less.

Now wake up from your dreams and get ready for the 'New New Deal' a.k.a "The Raw Deal" or just plain old socialist fascism, which definitely won't be of too much benefit to you and yours, black or not, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or whatever. Of course, that's unless you are one of "the chosen" for Change.


It will never happen, of course. The Republican Elite have nothing against Obama, including McCain, who refused to mention Obama's 20-year relationship with "Rev." Jeremiah Wright during the campaign. Remember Bush's fawning praises for the treasonous rapist Bill Clinton at the dedication of the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor in Little Rock? They're all part of "The Establishment." Obama and Bush-Cheney are on the same team.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

The Myth of "The Separation of Church and State" pt. 2

Last week's discussion of "the separation of church and state" continues tonight on "The Libertarian Dime." Hurry, the live show starts just 90 minutes ago. Notes and links will be posted here.

Obama is Not Immanuel

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14

But while Joseph thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
Matthew 1:18-23

“The State is God walking on Earth.”
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

I could have easily entitled this post, "George Bush is not Immanuel." Whoever (s)he is, the President is not Immanuel. "The government" is not Immanuel. "The State" is not Immanuel.

"Immanuel" means “God with us.”

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
The Gospel of John, chapter 1

This is the meaning of Christmas. God with us.

The name "Jesus" comes from the Hebrew word Yhowshuwa', which is derived from yasha', which is the Hebrew word most frequently translated "salvation." "Jesus" means the One who brings salvation. The One who brings salvation is God with us.

In the Bible, the vast majority of occurrences of the word for "salvation" refer to such things as health, welfare, peace, prosperity, wholeness, victory, security -- all of which the State claims to provide us.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats promise salvation through government. Both parties can trace their dialectical heritage to Hegel and Marx. Both parties and their establishment-approved candidates believe they are God walking on earth, bringing salvation to the world. Voters who cast their electoral palm branches before these Demoblican and Republicrat candidates are part of the world's most powerful religious cult.

This Christmas, remember who God is, and who brings salvation.

The 12 Days of Liberty:
How Christmas Brought Liberty to the Modern World
Day 1: Incarnation and Liberty
Day 2: I'm Dreaming of a Large Christmas
Day 3: The Birth of the Anti-King
Day 4: Defeating the Enemies
Day 5: Peace on Earth
Day 6: Peace on Earth, Goodwill Toward Capitalists
Day 7: Kingmas: Christ = King
Day 8: Let's Keep Christmas Commercialized
Day 9: A Christmas Nagocracy
Day 10: Christmas for the Lowly
Day 11: "All Flesh Will See the Salvation of God"
Day 12: The Christmas Millennium

Sunday, December 21, 2008

The Excommunication of George W. Bush

If George W. Bush were a member of the church I pastored, I would denounce him from the pulpit as an unrepentant mass-murderer.

If I were pastor of a church which Bush were not a member of, I would still denounce him from the pulpit as a mass-murderer.

I believe all Americans -- not just pastors -- have a duty to denounce unrepentant mass-murderers.

Recently, a pastor denounced (or planned to denounce) a woman who was unrepentantly engaging in sex outside of marriage:

BREAKING NEWS: Church Dares to Practice New Testament Christianity!

Even the ostensibly conservative former Ohio Congressman John Kasich, standing in for the ostensibly conservative Bill O'Reilly on the ostensibly conservative FoxNews network, denounced the pastor for bringing up this woman's sins.

The problem is not that this church nags fornicators and adulterers. The problem is more likely that the church does not nag mass-murderers and currency debasers.

Jesus said:

if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
(Matthew 18:15-17)

I'll bet this church has at least one tax collector on the church rolls.

America's Founding Fathers believed that a Free Republic was possible only with the promotion and practice of Christianity, the True Religion. Stated another way, the practice of Christian morality makes liberty possible. Conversely, a society that rejects "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" rejects liberty and ends up with tyranny.

Shunning unrepentant sinners is the core of this campaign's program to beat our swords into plowshares and abolish the State.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Newsweek Attacks Marriage

Last week's cover story for Newsweek magazine was Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy.

Surely nobody still believes that any part of the mainstream news media is simply a neutral and unbiased reporter of objective facts. This cover story is not just opinion:

Newsweek, or OpinionWeak? (Family Research Council Blog)

it is pure propaganda. Agit-prop.

The author, Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller, argues that the Bible should not be taken seriously when it claims that homosexuality is a sin, but that it should be taken seriously when (in her fuddled opinion) it claims that homosexuality is the wave of the future.

But she and the mainstream media don't really take the Bible seriously, but are simply trying to confuse those who do.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15

(Feel free to suggest for me alternative motivations for this article. Obviously she's not trying to convince homosexuals to take the Bible seriously.)

Newsweek Argues the Religious Case for Gay Marriage - Albert Mohler

Why Have a King?

This children's video from 1972 fails to answer the obvious question: Why Have a King at All?

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Pray for Mom!

I took my 82 year-old mother to the hospital yesterday. Her physical and mental health have been declining in the last month, and it turns out she has pneumonia. I think she'll be OK, but your prayers would be appreciated. :-)

Update, Wednesday December 10.
Yesterday mom had a battery of tests: a "TEE" (trans-esophogal echo: picture of heart taken through esophogus), ultrasound, MRI, and back x-ray. She went in because her back was hurting too bad to get out of bed. Now we've discovered that in addition to her pneumonia, she has an infection in her blood and heart. So my amateur prognosis posted above may have been overly-optimistic.

Thanks for your prayers.

Update, Friday December 12.

A letter from my sister:


Great news about Mom!

I spoke with her doctor at length this morning. Mom's prognosis for a full recovery is excellent.

Her nasty case of pneumonia snuck into her heart through the leaky valve (that we already knew she had) and caused endocarditis -- an inflammation of the heart caused by the infection. But, the antibiotics are working and her doctor says, "She's really doing very well."

Mom will have to remain on IV antibiotics for about three weeks. The hospital will install an IV port to make the daily IV infusions easier, without having to stick her with needles in her skinny little arms. Her care will be monitored by a home health care nurse and she'll also be tended to by visits from an in-home physical therapist to help her regain her strength. Kevin will be be on round-the-clock caregiver duty, which he did so admirably well in the past while he nursed Dad through cancer. He's already quite familiar with IV ports and popping pills into patients. I will be looking after Mom frequently, too, and relieved to be only making a trip to Powersite rather than clear to St. John's everyday. Peter and Darlene are wonderful Meals-On-Wheels providers, bless them. Mom will be in many good hands.

In any case, her doctor expects Mom to be released from the hospital by the end of this week -- in plenty of time for the family to gather for decking her halls -- and she'll have a brand new piano to play while she recuperates.

As my Dad used to say, "She's one tough cookie and still a pretty good-looking broad, too."

Thanks to all for the Get Well Wishes and prayers. Keep 'em coming; she's got a ways to go yet before she's "over the river and through the woods."


Friday, December 05, 2008

George W. Bush: European Socialist

Dick Morris wrote:

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to. George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union. In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.
• Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States?
• How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge?
• How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, which has 50 percent more population?
It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper. Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush -- not Obama -- Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists.

The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?

To paraphrase Richard Nixon: “We are all socialists now.”

"Too Many Links"

I tried posting the following comment on Thomas Knapp's blog, but was told (by the blogging software, not by Tom, I assume) "Your comment contains too many links and will not be added."

I love books with footnotes, and I like webpages with links.

Tom said (and I have no idea which post this comment was attached to):

1) The Constitution was broken before the ink was dry on it, both in construction (slavery, for example) and implementation (even the first three presidents, whose dedication to the country is difficult to doubt, found it impossible, or at least undesirable, to work within its constraints). There is no past constitutional candyland in which the thing was given full effect -- ever.

2) While there are overlaps between libertarianism and the content of the Constitution, libertarianism and constitutionalism aren't the same thing. Tactically, it may make sense to hold our opponents to the Constitution and to operate within its constraints ourselves ... but it's not scripture, it's not sacred, and a society moving in a libertarian direction will eventually find itself up against the choice of whether to heavily amend it or to simply overthrow it in favor of something entirely new.

In a nutshell, I use a pro-Constitution "tactic." But I also advocate abolition. (I think this is the original post.)

Here's how I put it in my comment -- with all its links:

I agree with you 200%, by which I mean, I may believe it more fanatically than you.

In my campaign I use the tactic of holding my opponent to his Oath of Office. Virtually no politician keeps his oath, and the Constitution is now just a fiction.

Every Signer of the Constitution, if he were here today, would confess the Constitution has completely and utterly failed to keep its objectives of preventing the government from becoming a Tyranny worse than the one we declared independence from in 1776. The Founders would surely work to abolish the Constitution and the government it created.

I would like to imagine that they would see (better than we do) that it isn't just the Constitution that failed, but it's the entire concept of "the government." Having abolished the Constitution and the federal government, they would not seek to replace it.

I don't think libertarians are going to make any real progress toward "political prosperity" (an old-fashioned term) unless we arouse Americans to Abolish the Federal Government entirely, and move to a state of "anarchism" (with a more marketable name).

It's like we're trapped in a spider web. We can struggle against the web, and "Reform" movements stretch the web temporarily in one direction or another, but we're still stuck -- until we achieve a collective will to break free of the web entirely.

That collective will won't develop without someone advocating for it.

Limited reforms -- like "making the Bush tax cuts permanent" -- make tyranny permanent.

And limited reforms and efforts to "shrink the size of government" continually fail. I have the Center for Small Government pledge on my website. It's just a "tactic." But Cloud and Howell failed to end the Income Tax in Massachusetts. I think it's because too many people feel that such efforts -- and all efforts to achieve "smaller" government -- will "lead to anarchy."

Most Americans don't want to go down that road.

We have to convince Americans to go down that road all the way, or the journey will never start.

(But I'm probably venting on the wrong blog. Apologies and thanks!)

Wednesday, December 03, 2008


I recently told someone that have over 200 webpages on my website, each attempting to show how "Liberty Under God" is the solution to America's many problems. I just counted and learned that I have over 700.

This gave me a feeling of being spread too thin.

I'm wondering if there isn't a more narrow goal, or a series of goals (step-by-step) to pursue to have more impact, to move more people away from fascism and socialism and closer to the goal of "Liberty Under God."

If you have suggestions, please post a comment -- with a link to your website if you'd like.

Monday, December 01, 2008

Income Redistribution

Raise your hand if you believe that America is the best place on earth for someone who wants to make more money, to move from the low income levels to the high income levels, if that person is willing to take time away from family and dedicate it to working on making more money, in a rational and cooperative manner.

I'm raising my hand.

Now, if you just raised your hand, raise it if you're willing to stand up before the crowd and explain why Larry Summers is not guilty of theft (a violation of the 8th Commandment) for his suggestions on how to redistribute the money earned by the rich by giving it to the poor.

I don't see any hands. If I missed yours, click the "comments" link below and make a comment.

Prof. George Reisman is not raising his hand either:

Summers apparently does not see, or if he does see, does not care, that in presenting his proposal for redistribution, what he is urging is armed robbery on a massive scale. That is the essence of any policy of “redistribution,” whether advocated by Summers and Obama or by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao.

For what is going to make each of the top 1 percent of income earners pay an extra $800,000 in taxes? The only thing that would make them pay it is fear of being arrested and imprisoned. And who will arrest and imprison them? Armed thugs wearing the uniforms and badges of officers of the United States Government, who would give them no other choice but to pay the money or be hauled off to jail and clubbed or shot if they resisted. (What a total perversion this would be of what the United States Government once stood for: a transformation from an institution designed for the protection of individual rights into a gang of bandits massively violating individual rights.)

How does this differ in any essential respect from those who are to receive the loot, in the form of $10,000 checks, taking matters into their own hands and simply robbing the homes and businesses of the top 1 percent of income earners to the extent of $10,000 each? They would give the homeowners and businessmen the same choice, of their money or their lives.

See also: Income Inequality: What's the Problem?

Sunday, November 30, 2008

"One Nation Under God"

George M. Docherty, credited with helping to push Congress to insert the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, has died at 97.

The phrase "under God" goes back in American history much further than the 1950's.

Recent efforts to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance are hypocritical, deceitful, or ignorant -- and therefore typical of secularist action under the myth of "the separation of church and state." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 1943 that children don't have to say a single word of the Pledge if they don't want to. The presence of the phrase "under God" tramples on nobody's rights, just as the presence of religious language in the Declaration of Independence tramples on nobody's rights. West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Some have criticized the Pledge itself as being written written by a socialist. Blog: Can we take it out now? Blog: More on the state's oath of obedience


Ultimately, a "nation" can never be "under God," any more than the mafia can, if "nation" is defined as "the State," the institutionalization of violence.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Give Thanks for Our Christian Theocracy

We enjoy the highest standard of living in human history because for three centuries (roughly 1600-1900) America was a Christian Theocracy.

The word "Theocracy" comes from two Greek words meaning "God rules."

A nation "under God" is, by definition, a "Theocracy."

A nation that acknowledges it has a "duty" to God is a Theocracy, as is a nation that confesses that God is "the great Lord and Ruler of Nations" and seeks "To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion." All of these Theocratic ideas were asserted by George Washington, October 3, 1789.

The Ten Commandments prohibit

1. Idolatry
2. False Religion
3. Swearing a false oath
4. Refusal to work
5. Disrespecting parents and other authorities
6. Murder
7. Cheating on your Wife
8. Theft
9. Slander
10. Covetousness

For more than 300 years, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" -- that is, the Bible -- permeated America's schools and American culture. These laws are the foundation of civilization. Industry, commerce, social harmony, charity, and education are impossible without them. More than a billion people on earth live in poverty and ignorance because their culture is rooted in magic and envy rather than true religion. By creating a Christian Theocracy, America's Founding Fathers laid the foundation for ordered liberty, economic prosperity, and peaceful, dependable social relations.

We should be thankful we still feel the benevolent effects of America's Christian Theocracy.

America's Founders spoke of America as "an experiment in liberty." Their "experiment" succeeded in making America the most prosperous -- and most admired -- nation in human history.

In the 20th century the "Eastern Liberal Establishment" -- of which Barack Obama is the latest incarnation -- attempted a new experiment: an experiment in government central planning. The "establishment" and its think-tanks (like the Council on Foreign Relations) exported this experiment to nations like Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union. Everywhere this experiment has been tried, the results have been poverty and mass death. In the 21st century, the United States is now becoming an atheistic petri dish for these mad scientists.

As long as we give thanks to any one but God for the prosperity we enjoy, we will be part of a brainwashed religious cult: the cult of the omnipotent State.

As long as we fear the word "Theocracy" we will be slaves in an atheistic theocracy where every man thinks he is his own god, yet the State wields total, crushing power, and all but the elite live in poverty. Three centuries of Christian Theocracy and one century of "the separation of church and state" teach us no clearer lesson than this.

This Thanksgiving, don't just give a little thanks to God. Thank Him like an extremist. Jesus said,

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
Revelation 3:15-16

Barack Obama is an extremist. He has worked hard to get where he is today, and where he will be on January 20th, 2009, becoming the most powerful dictator in human history, inheriting the office of "unitary executive" created for him by George W. Bush.

A quarter of a million wannabe extremists have applied for positions in the Obama Nomenklatura. They will direct an army of millions of government employees who will just be "following orders" when they begin ruling over the lukewarm.

Jesus has more respect for Barack Obama and Vladamir Putin than He does for millions of lukewarm Christians who are embarrassed to defend Christocracy.

Thanksgiving Reading List

Last Year's Thanksgiving Post

Last Year's "Ozarks Virtual Town Hall" - Thanksgiving Day - November 24, 2007

Government-Sponsored Prayer and Thanksgiving to God

Chuck Colson : "God's Instrument" The story of Squanto

How Relevant are the Pilgrims? - Acton Institute PowerBlog

What Every Child Should Know About Thanksgiving - Newt Gingrich

Our First Thanksgiving - The Foundation for Economic Education

Property and the First Thanksgiving - Gary Galles - Mises Institute

Give Thanks for What You Have, While You Still Have It.

The Pilgrims’ Real Thanksgiving Lesson - The Independent Institute

Why Is It That the More We Have, the Less Thankful We Are?

The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving: The Triumph of Capitalism over Collectivism

What Do You Possess Today Which, If You Did Not Possess It Next Year, You Would Appreciate Most?

Things to be Thankful For: 2008 vs. 1808

More Gratitude for 2008 vs. 1808

Holiday Meals Rife with (Safe) Carcinogens!

The true focus of Thanksgiving

Kindergarten Pilgrim, Indian costumes banned

Celebrating Thanksgiving in America

The tradition introduced by European Americans of Thanksgiving as a time to focus on God and His blessings dates back well over four centuries in America. For example, such thanksgivings occurred in 1541 at Palo Duro Canyon, Texas with Coronado and 1,500 of his men; 1 in 1564 at St. Augustine, Florida with French Huguenot (Protestant) colonists; 2 in 1598 at El Paso, Texas with Juan de Oñate and his expedition; 3 in 1607 at Cape Henry, Virginia with the landing of the Jamestown settlers; 4 in 1619 at Berkeley Plantation, Virginia; 5 (and many other such celebrations). But it is primarily from the Pilgrim’s Thanksgiving celebration of 1621 that we derive the current tradition of Thanksgiving Day.

The Pilgrims set sail for America on September 6, 1620, and for two months braved the harsh elements of a storm-tossed sea. Upon disembarking at Plymouth Rock, they held a prayer service and then hastily began building shelters; however, unprepared for such a harsh New England winter, nearly half of them died before spring. 6 Emerging from that grueling winter, the Pilgrims were surprised when an Indian named Samoset approached them and greeted them in their own language, explaining to them that he had learned English from fishermen and traders. A week later, Samoset returned with a friend named Squanto, who lived with the Pilgrims and accepted their Christian faith. Squanto taught the Pilgrims much about how to live in the New World, and he and Samoset helped forge a long-lasting peace treaty between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Indians. Pilgrim Governor William Bradford described Squanto as “a special instrument sent of God for [our] good . . . and never left [us] till he died.” 7

That summer, the Pilgrims, still persevering in prayer and assisted by helpful Indians, 8 reaped a bountiful harvest. 9 As Pilgrim Edward Winslow (later to become the Governor) affirmed, “God be praised, we had a good increase of corn”; “by the goodness of God, we are far from want.” 10 The grateful Pilgrims therefore declared a three-day feast in December 1621 to thank God and to celebrate with their Indian friends 11 – America’s first Thanksgiving Festival. Ninety Wampanoag Indians joined the fifty Pilgrims for three days of feasting (which included shellfish, lobsters, turkey, corn bread, berries, deer, and other foods), of play (the young Pilgrim and Wampanoag men engaged in races, wrestling matches, and athletic events), and of prayer. This celebration and its accompanying activities were the origin of the holiday that Americans now celebrate each November.

However, while the Pilgrims enjoyed times of prosperity for which they thanked God, they also suffered extreme hardships. In fact, in 1623 they experienced an extended and prolonged drought. Knowing that without a change in the weather there would be no harvest and the winter would be filled with death and starvation, Governor Bradford called the Pilgrims to a time of prayer and fasting to seek God’s direct intervention. Significantly, shortly after that time of prayer – and to the great amazement of the Indian who witnessed the scene – clouds appeared in the sky and a gentle and steady rain began to fall. As Governor Bradford explained:

It came without either wind or thunder or any violence, and by degrees in abundance, as that ye earth was thoroughly wet and soaked therewith, which did so apparently revive and quicken ye decayed corn and other fruits as was wonderful to see, and made ye Indians astonished to behold; and afterwards the Lord sent them such seasonable showers, with interchange of fair warm weather as, through His blessing, caused a fruitful and liberal harvest, to their no small comfort and rejoicing. 12

The drought had been broken; the fall therefore produced an abundant harvest; there was cause for another thanksgiving. The Pilgrim practice of designating an official time of Thanksgiving spread into neighboring colonies and became an annual tradition. 13 And just as those neighboring colonies followed the Pilgrims’ example of calling for days of thanksgiving, so, too, did they adopt their practice of calling for a time of prayer and fasting. The New England Colonies therefore developed a practice of calling for a day of prayer and fasting in the spring, and a day of prayer and thanksgiving in the fall.

The Thanksgiving celebrations so common throughout New England did not begin to spread southward until the American Revolution, when Congress issued eight separate national Thanksgiving Proclamations. (Congress also issued seven separate proclamations for times of fasting and prayer, for a total of 15 official prayer proclamations during the American Revolution. 14)

America’s first national Thanksgiving occurred in 1789 with the commencement of the federal government. According to the Congressional Record for September 25 of that year, the first act after the Framers completed the framing of the Bill of Rights was that:

Mr. [Elias] Boudinot said he could not think of letting the session pass without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution:
Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a Day of Public Thanksgiving and Prayer. . . .
Mr. Roger Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving on any single event not only as a laudable one in itself but also as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ. . . . This example he thought worthy of a Christian imitation on the present occasion. 15

That congressional resolution was delivered to President George Washington, who heartily concurred with the request and issued the first federal Thanksgiving proclamation, declaring in part:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor. . . . Now, therefore, I do appoint Thursday, the 26th day of November 1789 . . . that we may all unite to render unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection. 16

That same year, the Protestant Episcopal Church (of which President Washington was a member) announced that the first Thursday in November would become its regular day for giving thanks, “unless another day be appointed by the civil authorities.” 17 Following President Washington’s initial proclamation, national Thanksgiving Proclamations occurred only sporadically (another by President Washington in 1795, one by John Adams in 1799, one by James Madison in 1814 and again in 1815, etc.); 18 most official Thanksgiving observances occurred at the state level. In fact, by 1815, the various state governments had issued at least 1,400 official prayer proclamations, almost half for times of thanksgiving and prayer and the other half for times of fasting and prayer. 19

Much of the credit for the adoption of Thanksgiving as an annual national holiday may be attributed to Mrs. Sarah Josepha Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book, a popular lady’s books containing poetry, art work, and articles by America’s leading authors. For nearly three decades, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, 20 contacting president after president until Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of that November. The Thanksgiving proclamation issued by Lincoln was remarkable not only for its strong religious content but also for its timing, for it was delivered in the midst of the darkest days of the Civil War, with the Union having lost battle after battle throughout the first three years of that conflict. Yet, despite those dark circumstances, Lincoln nevertheless called Americans to prayer with an air of positive optimism and genuine thankfulness, noting that:

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the Source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God. . . . No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, Who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. 21

That remarkable Thanksgiving Proclamation came at a pivotal point in Lincoln’s spiritual life. Three months earlier, the Battle of Gettysburg had occurred, resulting in the loss of some 60,000 American lives. It had been while Lincoln was walking among the thousands of graves there at Gettysburg that he first committed his life to Christ. As he later explained to a clergyman:

When I left Springfield [Illinois, to assume the Presidency], I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. 22

The dramatic spiritual impact resulting from that experience was not only visible in Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Day proclamation (and also his 1864 call for a day of prayer and fasting) but especially in his 1865 Second Inaugural Address.

Over the seventy-five years following Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation, presidents faithfully followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day (but the date of the celebrations varied widely from proclamation to proclamation). In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt began celebrating Thanksgiving on the fourth Thursday of each November, and in 1941, Congress permanently established that day as the national Thanksgiving holiday. 23

As you celebrate Thanksgiving this year, remember to retain the original gratefulness to God that has always been the spirit of this – the oldest of all American holidays. (Below are representative examples of the scores of Thanksgiving proclamations penned by various Founding Fathers.)

[Congress] recommended [a day of] . . . thanksgiving and praise [so] that “the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and join . . . their supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, to forgive [our sins] and . . . to enlarge [His] kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” 24 Continental Congress, 1777 – written by SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION SAMUEL ADAMS AND RICHARD HENRY LEE

[I] appoint . . . a day of public Thanksgiving to Almighty God . . . to [ask] Him that He would . . . pour out His Holy Spirit on all ministers of the Gospel; that He would . . . spread the light of Christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth; . . . and that He would establish these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue. 25 GOVERNOR THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1779

[I] appoint . . . a day of public thanksgiving and praise . . . to render to God the tribute of praise for His unmerited goodness towards us . . . [by giving to] us . . . the Holy Scriptures which are able to enlighten and make us wise to eternal salvation. And [to] present our supplications...that He would forgive our manifold sins and . . . cause the benign religion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and practiced among all the inhabitants of the earth. 26 GOVERNOR JOHN HANCOCK, 1790


1. Library of Congress, “Thanksgiving Timeline, 1541-2001” (at:

2. Library of Congress, “Thanksgiving Timeline, 1541-2001” (at“”).(Return)

3. Texas Almanac, “The First Thanksgiving?” (at

4. Benson Lossing, Our Country. A Household History of the United States (New York: James A. Bailey, 1895), Vol. 1, pp. 181-182; see also National Park Service, “Robert Hunt: Jamestown’s First Chaplain” (at

5. “Berkeley Plantation,” Berkeley Plantation.Com, (at: (accessed November 17, 2008).(Return)

6. William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1856), pp. 74, 78, 80, 91.(Return)

7. William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1856), p. 95.(Return)

8. William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1856), p. 100.(Return)

9. William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1856), p. 105.(Return)

10. William S. Russell, Guide to Plymouth and Recollections of the Pilgrims (Boston: George Coolidge, 1846), p. 95, quoting from a letter of Pilgrim Edward Winslow to George Morton of London, written on December 21, 1621.(Return)

11. Ashbel Steele, Chief of the Pilgrims: Or the Life and Time of William Brewster (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co, 1857), pp. 269-270.(Return)

12. William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1856), p. 142.(Return)

13. DeLoss Love, Jr, The Fast and Thanksgiving Days of New England (Boston: Houghton,, Mifflin & Co, 1895), pp. 87-90.(Return)

14. See the Journals of the Continental Congress (1905) for June 12, 1775; March 16, 1776; December 11, 1776; November 1, 1777; March 7, 1778; November 17, 1778; March 20, 1779; October 20, 1779; March 11, 1780; October 18, 1780; March 20, 1781; October 26, 1781; March 19, 1782; October 11, 1782; October 18, 1783.(Return)

15. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, pp. 949-950.(Return)

16. George Washington, Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor ((Boston: Russell, Odiorne and Metcalf, 1838), Vol. XII, p. 119, Proclamation for a National Thanksgiving on October 3, 1789.(Return)

17. The American Cyclopaedia, A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge, George Ripley and Charles A. Dana, editors (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1883), Vol. XV, p. 684, s.v., “Thanksgiving Day.”(Return)

18. See, for example, H. S. J. Sickel, Thanksgiving: Its Source, Philosophy and History With All National Proclamations (Philadelphia: International Printing Co, 1940), pp. 154-155, “Thanksgiving Day- 1795” by George Washington, pp. 156-157, “Thanksgiving Day – 1798” by John Adams, pp. 158-159, “Thanksgiving Day – 1799” by John Adams, p. 160, “Thanksgiving Day – 1814” by James Madison, p. 161, “Thanksgiving Day – 1815” by James Madison, etc.(Return)

19. Deloss Love, in his work The Fast and Thanksgiving Days of New England, lists some 1,735 proclamations issued between 1620 and 1820, in a non-exclusive list. Of those, 284 were issued by churches and 1,451 by civil authorities. Of the civil proclamations, 1,028 were issued prior to July 4, 1776, and 413 from July 4, 1776 to 1820. Of the church issued proclamations, 278 were issued before July 4, 1776, and six afterwards. These, however, are only a portion of what were issued; for example, the author personally owns hundreds of additional proclamations not listed in Love’s work. While the exact number of government-issued prayer proclamations is unknown, it is certain that they certainly number in the thousands.(Return)

20. Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography, James Grant Wilson & John Fiske, editors (New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1888), Vol. III, p. 35.(Return)

21. Abraham Lincoln, The Works of Abraham Lincoln, John H. Clifford & Marion M. Miller, editors (New York: University Society Inc, 1908), Vol. VI, pp. 160-161, Proclamation for Thanksgiving, October 3, 1863. See also, The American Presidency Project, “Abraham Lincoln: Proclamation – Thanksgiving Day, 1863” (at:

22. Abraham Lincoln, The Lincoln Memorial: Album-Immortelles. Osborn H. Oldroyd, editor (New York: G.W. Carleton & Co, 1882) p. 366, Reply to an Illinois Clergyman.(Return)

23. The National Archives, “Congress Establishes Thanksgiving” (at:; see also Pilgrim Hall Museum, “Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations 1940-1949: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman” (at:, Proclamation 2571: Days of Prayer: Thanksgiving Day and New Year’s Day, November 11, 1942, referring to a “joint resolution of Congress approved December 26, 1941, which designates the fourth Thursday in November of each year as Thanksgiving Day.”(Return)

24. Journals of the Continental Congress (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907), Vol. IX, p. 855, November 1, 1777.(Return)

25. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. 3, p. 178, Proclamation Appointing a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, November 11, 1779.(Return)

26. John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Public Thanksgiving (Boston, 1790), from an original broadside in possession of the author.(Return)

Give Thanks to Our Redeemer - George Washington

The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, Library of Congress

Head Quarters, Moore's House, Saturday, November 27, 1779.

Parole Landaft. Countersigns Lexington, Leeds.

The Honorable the Congress has been pleased to pass the following proclamation.

Whereas it becomes us humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God, with gratitude and praise for the wonders which his goodness has wrought in conducting our fore-fathers to this western world; for his protection to them and to their posterity amid difficulties and dangers; for raising us, their children, from deep distress to be numbered among the nations of the earth; and for arming the hands of just and mighty princes in our deliverance; and especially for that he hath been pleased to grant us the enjoyment of health, and so to order the revolving seasons, that the earth hath produced her increase in abundance, blessing the labors of the husbandmen, and spreading plenty through the land; that he hath prospered our arms and those of our ally; been a shield to our troops in the hour of danger, pointed their swords to victory and led them in triumph over the bulwarks of the foe; that he hath gone with those who went out into the wilderness against the savage tribes; that he hath stayed the hand of the spoiler, and turned back his meditated destruction; that he hath prospered our commerce, and given success to those who sought the enemy on the face of the deep; and above all, that he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel, whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory: therefore,

RESOLVED, That it be recommended to the several states, to appoint Thursday, the 9th of December next, to be a day of public and solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God for his mercies, and of prayer for the continuance of his favor and protection to these United States; to beseech him that he would be graciously pleased to influence our public councils, and bless them with wisdom from on high, with unanimity, firmness, and success; that he would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with victory; that he would grant to his church the plentiful effusions of divine grace, and pour out his holy spirit on all ministers of the gospel; that he would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth; that he would smile upon the labours of his people and cause the earth to bring forth her fruits in abundance; that we may with gratitude and gladness enjoy them; that he would take into his holy protection our illustrious ally, give him victory over his enemies, and render him signally great, as the father of his people and the protector of the rights of mankind; that he would graciously be pleased to turn the hearts of our enemies, and to dispense the blessings of peace to contending nations; that he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon our sins and receive us into his favor, and finally, that he would establish the independence of these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue, and support and protect them in the enjoyment of peace, liberty and safety.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

The Insiders' Crusade

Millions of Americans voted for Obama because "he's one of us," and he'll take from the rich and fill our gas tanks and pay our mortgages.

But Obama is not really one of "them," he just crooned "them" into voting for him.

And his "insider" friends.

In his Nov. 21 New York Times column, titled "The Insider's Crusade" (note the slight but important difference in the title of this blog post), David Brooks sounds like John Birch Society Kingpin John F. McManus:

Jan. 20, 2009, will be a historic day. Barack Obama (Columbia, Harvard Law) will take the oath of office as his wife, Michelle (Princeton, Harvard Law), looks on proudly. Nearby, his foreign policy advisers will stand beaming, including perhaps Hillary Clinton (Wellesley, Yale Law), Jim Steinberg (Harvard, Yale Law) and Susan Rice (Stanford, Oxford D. Phil.).

The domestic policy team will be there, too, including Jason Furman (Harvard, Harvard Ph.D.), Austan Goolsbee (Yale, M.I.T. Ph.D.), Blair Levin (Yale, Yale Law), Peter Orszag (Princeton, London School of Economics Ph.D.) and, of course, the White House Counsel Greg Craig (Harvard, Yale Law).

This truly will be an administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on their SATs. Even more than past administrations, this will be a valedictocracy — rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes. If a foreign enemy attacks the United States during the Harvard-Yale game any time over the next four years, we’re screwed.

Already the culture of the Obama administration is coming into focus. Its members are twice as smart as the poor reporters who have to cover them, three times if you include the columnists. They typically served in the Clinton administration and then, like Cincinnatus, retreated to the comforts of private life — that is, if Cincinnatus had worked at Goldman Sachs, Williams & Connolly or the Brookings Institution. So many of them send their kids to Georgetown Day School, the posh leftish private school in D.C., that they’ll be able to hold White House staff meetings in the carpool line.

Of course, as can be seen in the rest of the column, this is praise by faint damnation. Brooks believes in the Messianic powers of The Establishment.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The U.S. vs. The Free Market

In the President's Radio Address this morning, President Bush says he is "in Lima, Peru, meeting with leaders from nations in the Asia Pacific region at our annual summit."

Last week the leaders of other nations came to Washington D.C., where they collectively deliberated on how to run America's economy. Bush called them our "partners."

Did you vote those foreign leaders into the office of "parter?"

"Together," Bush says, "our nations must focus our efforts on three great forces that drive this growth -- free markets, free trade, and free people."

"Our nations?" Which nation is your nation other than America?

What can "our nations" do to promote "free markets, free trade, and free people" other than by not doing anything? Did "our nations" and our "partners" "focus" on abolishing the laws, regulations, and confiscations which stand in the way of "free markets, free trade, and free people?"

Bush also supports giving your money to Detroit. Presumably, if you supported giving your money to Detroit, you already would have. Obviously, Americans don't want to give their money to Detroit, or they already would have. Just as clearly, the Bush-Obama regime disagrees with what you want.

We'll be discussing the President's Saturday Morning Address in a live webinar, "The Ozarks Virtual Town Hall" at 10:30 am Central time this morning. Join in over the phone or over your computer.

"The Ozarks Virtual Town Hall" meets every Saturday morning to review the President's Saturday Morning Radio Address from the perspective of "Liberty Under God."

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

No Detroit Bailout!

Detroit Three — Thanks for the Memories
Lori Stillwagon Roman

         Four generations of my family worked in General Motors Plants. My great grandfather, grandfather, father, brothers and I all worked for Buick Motor Division in Flint, Michigan.  After working my way through college at the Buick Engine Plant, I became an economic analyst and then a supervisor at another GM plant. My family was so loyal to General Motors that we considered a Ford a foreign car. This is why it makes it particularly painful for me to say that there should not be a bailout.

         I have agonized over this at length.  If my brother sees this editorial there won’t be presents exchanged this Christmas. Let me lead you, and my brother, through my torturous thinking process.

         First, I believe that sending the government to bail out the auto industry or an industry at this time is like sending an arsonist to put out a fire. The government is partially to blame for the problem with the auto industry.

         The government created the credit crisis by forcing lenders to make bad loans and the resulting credit crunch made it difficult to sell cars. Democrats in Congress (even some from Michigan) are responsible for blocking domestic oil production in the United States which has driven up gas prices and sent our wealth and potential American jobs to the “bad guys”.

         One would think that since the government created the crisis, they should fix it, right? No. They should STOP messing with the markets, not mess with them more! They should let lenders make prudent loans and let energy producers produce energy and they should let the automakers get out of this mess without government help or interference. They should not send folks with gasoline to put out a fire. Congress doesn’t just want to “bail out” the Detroit Three, they want to add on their own restrictions to make Detroit “green”.

         Second, as a former supervisor of UAW workers at a GM facility, I will say that poor management and union malpractice made the Detroit Three uncompetitive long before the government sent in their arsonists.

    To put it bluntly, the UAW takes the hard earned money of the best workers and spends it defending the very worst workers while tying up the industry with thousands of pages of work rules that make it impossible to be competitive. And the spineless management often makes short sighted decisions to satisfy the union and maximize immediate benefits over long term sustainability.

         The strength of the union and the weakness of management made it impossible to conduct business properly at any level. For instance, I had an employee who punched in his time card and then disappeared. The rules were such that I had to spend hours documenting that this man was not in his three foot by three foot work area. I needed witnesses, timed reports, calls over the intercom and a plant wide search all documented in detail. After this absurdity I decided to go my own route; I called the corner bar and paged him and he came to the phone. I gave him a 30 day unpaid disciplinary lay off because he was a “repeat offender”. When he returned he thanked me for the PAID vacation. I scoffed, until he explained: (1) He had tried to get the lay off because it was fishing season; (2) The UAW negotiated with GM Labor Relations Department to give him the time WITH PAY.

         I supervised a loading dock and 21 UAW workers who worked approximately five hours per day for eight hours pay. They could easily load one third more rail cars and still maintain their union negotiated break times, but when I tried to make them increase production ever so slightly they sabotaged my ability to make even the current production levels by hiding stock, calling in sick, feigning equipment problems, and even once, as a show of force, used a fork lift truck and pallets and racks to create a car part prison where they trapped me while I was conducting inventory. The reaction of upper management to my request to boost production was that I should “not be naïve”.

         One afternoon I was helping oversee the plant while upper management was off site.  The workers brought an RV into the loading yard with a female “entertainer” who danced for them and then “entertained” them in the RV. With no other management around, I went to Labor Relations for assistance. As a twenty five year old woman, I was not about to try to break up a crowd of fifty rowdy men. The Labor Relations Rep pulled out the work rules and asked me which of the rules the men were breaking. I read through the rules and none applied directly of course. Who wrote work rules to cover prostitutes at lunch? The only “legal” cause I had was an unauthorized vehicle and person and that blame did not fall on the union workers who were being “entertained” but on the security guards at the gate. Not one person suffered any consequence.

         Another employee in the plant urinated on the feet of his supervisor as a protest to discipline. He was, of course, fired…that is until the union negotiated and got his job back.

         Eventually I was promoted to a management position where I supervised salaried employees at HQ. As I left the plant I gave management a blunt message. I told them that I expected the union to act like the union, but I was disappointed that management didn’t act like management. 

         This is why, with deep regret and sympathy for the many fine folks who work in the auto industry, I think it is time for consequences. Let them file Chapter 11 and reorganize. Let management act like management and the union stop destroying our competitiveness. And let the government get out of the business of business.


Action Alert

After the Paulson $700 billion bailout package passed in early October, we knew it was only a matter of time before Congress moved to use your money yet again to bail out a struggling industry.

Now, a vote to give funds to the "Big 3" auto manufactures, GM, Ford, and Chrysler, is likely to come up in the Senate tomorrow.

Call your Senators today and ask them to oppose bailing out the auto industry, whether with funds from TARP, revisions of previous loans, or any new grants. To find the information for your Senators, click on our "States" page and look for your state. Phone numbers and links to contact forms can be found near the bottom of each state's page. We have included recommended letters at the end of this email to send your Senator.

The ultimate fate of the auto industry bailout remains uncertain, and it is crucial that we contact our Senators today and urge them to stick to the Constitution and free market principles.

Please also consider making a donation to Campaign for Liberty today to aid us in our efforts to fight big government policies at the local, state, and federal levels. Together, we will achieve our goals of reclaiming our Republic and restoring our Constitution.

In Liberty,

John Tate

Campaign for Liberty


Letter #1

Dear Senator (Name),

I urge you to oppose any bailout of the auto industry, whether by taking existing funds from TARP, revising any previous loans, or making new grants.

The auto industry is lobbying hard for taxpayer money when they should be entirely focused on restructuring their companies and recouping their losses. There is no guarantee that a government handout will have any positive effect, and that GM, Ford, and Chrysler will not be back in a few months asking for additional billions.

Since a bailout will only delay the economic consequences of the Big 3's current predicaments, Congress should allow the market to work so that the fallout can be dealt with and overcome as quickly as possible.

Instead of handing out more of the taxpayers' money and moving further away from the free market ideas that made America great, I ask you to:

1.) Curb regulation: The auto industry is already one of the most heavily-regulated industries, and a bailout will bring more government regulation and additional costs. Alleviating even a little of the red tape would free up resources for them to address their financial situations, save jobs, and produce quality products to jump-start sales.

2.) Cut taxes: Cutting corporate and capital gains taxes would give these companies immediate funds to put toward their problems. Cutting individual income taxes would return much needed money to workers and consumers, strengthening their financial positions and purchasing power during these turbulent times.

Taking just these two steps will save the industry far more in the long run than the numbers currently being proposed for the bailout.

Additionally, because the Paulson TARP plan has abandoned its originally stated purpose of buying toxic assets, is not holding up its promises to be transparent, and has not been properly accountable to Congress, no further expenditures should be authorized until the Treasury Department presents a full accounting to Congress of how it has already dispersed TARP funds.

Since the election, Republicans have talked of returning to their limited government message. This is a chance for you to prove your commitment to free market capitalism and the freedom philosophy by demonstrating that the Republican Party will be worthy of our trust in the next Congress. A vote for another bailout will send the signal that, despite any lip-service paid to limited government principles, Republican talking points of defending them are cheap and little more than campaign rhetoric.

The answers to our economic problems cannot be found in further government intervention. As your constituent, I urge you not to put my tax dollars on the line and to vote "no" on the auto industry bailout.



Letter #2

Dear Senator (Name),

I urge you to oppose any bailout of the auto industry, whether by taking existing funds from TARP, revising any previous loans, or making new grants.

The auto industry is lobbying hard for taxpayer money when they should be entirely focused on restructuring their companies and recouping their losses. There is no guarantee that a government handout will have any positive effect, and that GM, Ford, and Chrysler will not be back in a few months asking for additional billions.

Since a bailout will only delay the economic consequences of the Big 3's current predicaments, Congress should allow the market to work so that the fallout can be dealt with and overcome as quickly as possible.

Instead of handing out more of the taxpayers' money and moving further away from the free market ideas that made America great, I ask you to:

1.) Curb regulation: The auto industry is already one of the most heavily-regulated industries, and a bailout will bring more government regulation and additional costs. Alleviating even a little of the red tape would free up resources for them to address their financial situations, save jobs, and produce quality products to jumpstart sales.

2.) Cut taxes: Cutting corporate and capital gains taxes would give these companies immediate funds to put toward their problems. Cutting individual income taxes would return much needed money to workers and consumers, strengthening their financial positions and purchasing power during these turbulent times.

Taking just these two steps will save the industry far more in the long run than the numbers currently being proposed for the bailout.

Additionally, because the Paulson TARP plan has abandoned its originally stated purpose of buying toxic assets, is not holding up its promises to be transparent, and has not been properly accountable to Congress, no further expenditures should be authorized until the Treasury Department presents a full accounting to Congress of how it has already dispersed TARP funds.

The answers to our economic problems cannot be found in further government intervention. As your constituent, I urge you not to put my tax dollars on the line and to vote "no" on the auto industry bailout.



From the Heritage Foundation:

The Detroit Bailout: Unsafe at Any Cost

The Automaker Bailout: Questions Congress Must Ask the Automakers

Auto Bailout Ignores Excessive Labor Costs

Automakers Need Bankruptcy, Not Bailout

Why did this take the mainstream media by surprise?

General Motors and the Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Wall Street | Karen De Coster and Eric Englund

General Motors Runs Over the Experts | Gary North, May 7, 2005

GM's negative net worth nicely parallel's Washington D.C.'s. Someday the mainstream media will figure out that one too.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Non-Denominational Theocracy

In a previous post I rebutted the claim that America has A Secular Constitution.

I recently found a statement which buttresses this rebuttal. It comes from Charles B. Galloway's book Christianity and the American Commonwealth (1898). He says:

To the study of this subject I have been impelled by the evident tendency of some modern historians to minify, if not almost entirely eliminate, religion from the formative forces of our American institutions. Books on the making of our nation have been written, and are the texts in our colleges, in which the Christian religion, as a social and civil factor, has only scant or apologetic mention. This is either a fatal oversight or a deliberate purpose, and both alike are to be deplored and condemned. A nation ashamed of its ancestry will be despised by its posterity. Whatever use or misuse we may make of our inheritance, it is well to be reminded from whence it came. We ought to know the genesis of our institutions, though we may have to lament their exodus. With the growth of a subtle materialistic spirit which invades every department of life, however sacred and secret, we are threatened with an undervaluing or ignoring of the great moral and spiritual forces that constructed the massive framework of this mighty nation. Climatic, economic, racial, and purely political forces are analyzed and properly classified; but the religious factor, which more than either or all of them determined the character of our civilization and the form of our government, has received very indifferent, if not malevolent, consideration. All of which confirms the judgment of a distinguished writer who has recently observed that “the place of religion in human history is too often the subject merely of ecclesiastical or antiecclesiastical declamation, or else, through fear of giving offense, it is left severely alone.”

History books 150 years ago were often written by those trained by and loyal to ecclesiastical institutions. Their histories might have Presbyterian slant, or a Catholic slant, or an anti-Catholic slant. Anyone writing from a non-denominational perspective could expect negative reviews from the various denominations, who felt that their denomination's contributions had been slighted, or the dangerous errors of the opposing denomination ignored. Galloway is saying that as secularism was rising, generically Christian studies were vanishing. Nobody wanted to upset the ecclesiastical powers.

This is why there was no explicitly Christian preamble or other wording in the federal Constitution (unlike several state constitutions). Any proposal by a Presbyterian for such Christian language in the Constitution would have been opposed by the Baptists, who suspected some kind of state establishment of Presbyterianism would have resulted.

It was ecclesiastically-connected delegates -- Christians -- who opposed Christian language in the Constitution. There is not a shred of evidence that they wanted a "Godless constitution" and a "secular" (atheistic) government. They just didn't want to disrupt the consensus by offending ecclesiastical parties and officials.

Now, with the hope of contributing somewhat to the arrest of that tendency, and of aiding the students of this honored institution to a broader study of the earlier history of this American commonwealth, I have timidly ventured upon the theme of these lectures. My purpose shall be, if possible, to demonstrate that Protestant Christianity has been the dominant influence in our nation’s construction and continuation. For I hesitate not to affirm that the temple at Jerusalem was built by a no more sacred patriotism or under the benedictions of a no more favoring Providence than were the colonial governments of this New World.

Christian teachings were the seed-thoughts of our political constitutions, and Christian evangelism was the inspiration of American colonization. If we eliminate from our national history the direct and all-powerful influence of the Christian religion, we have nothing left but a set of disjointed facts without significance, dry and dreary annals without parentage or posterity. But, on the other hand, a right apprehension of all the formative forces in our national life will vindicate the matured judgment of Emerson, that “our whole history appears like a last effort of Divine Providence in behalf of the human race.”

After surveying the various charters of government, federal and state, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892 -- motivated by the same anti-secular concerns of Galloway -- declared that America is a Christian nation:

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

Nobody ever thought about challenging the idea that America was a Christian nation, which is why there were few court precedents to be cited in the 1892 decision. But according to the U.S. Supreme Court, America was officially and legally -- "organically" -- a Christian nation.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Keeping Promises

Let's divide what you earned last year into thirds:

If you paid a single dime in personal income taxes, you paid about one-third of your income in direct taxes:

(This includes Social Security "contributions," which the Court has ruled are just another tax, and the Congress has no duty to give any of it back to you when you retire -- and are matched by more money taken out of your paycheck by your employer, who is required to match your "contribution.")

If you bought a new car for $25,000, you paid anywhere from $10,000 to $13,000 in corporate income taxes, which were levied on all the big, bad businesses which created the various parts of your car, and were passed on to you (because businesses have no income to pay corporate income taxes other than what they get in the price tag paid by consumers). YOU pay all corporate income taxes. About one-half of the price you pay for everything you buy reflects taxes and other government regulatory fees passed on to you by businesses which are attacked by government.

This means that the piece of the pie you get to keep for yourself is the one-third slice, while the government takes two-thirds.

Now consider another fact: For every dollar the government takes to "help the poor," about 50 cents remains in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, while only one-half gets to the poor. This is the average for government "services" after "administrative overhead" is taken out. Some bureaucracies are more wasteful, some are less wasteful, but no government agency is as efficient as a competitive business or voluntary charity in the free market providing similar goods or services.

So, the government takes 2/3 of everything you earn.

The government wastes half of everything it takes.

This means that if all government programs were abolished, and all taxes were cut, your disposable income would be 3 times larger than it is today. You could donate 1/3 of your income (only one-half of what the government currently taxes from you) to charities -- who would do a better job of helping the needy -- or you could buy government services on the Free Market for half the price the government now charges.

That would mean your disposable income would be twice as large as it is today, and your society would be better off: the poor would be better cared for, the roads would be better maintained, the next generation would be better educated.

Now consider this hypothetical:
If you could check a box on your IRS 1040 tax return that would refund every penny you paid in taxes (whether direct or indirect), on the condition that you promise to donate one-half of the refund to charities and organizations that benefit the public, would you check that box?

If you checked that box, would you keep your promise and donate one-half of the rebate to worthwhile public benefit projects -- or would you spend the money on middle-class bling? (HDTV, SUV's, RV, boat, cruise, etc.)

If other Americans were given the opportunity to check the box, would you trust them to keep their promise?

If the answer to those two questions is "no," then you live in a nation of slaves, not the "land of the free." You live in a nation of selfish people who cannot be trusted to keep their promises. You live in a nation whose people will not do good things unless threatened with violence by the government.

Will the government make us a free people?

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Abolish the Federal Reserve System

I will be interviewed tonight on the Libertarian Dime at 8:30pm Central Time. The subject will be the Federal Reserve System and why we should abolish it. I think you can hear it here [mp3].

I was hoping to update this webpage before the broadcast, but I may not have time.

Update: The show was not broadcast live.



Monday, November 10, 2008

Sacred Civil Institutions

A blogger at Positive Liberty has complained about California's Proposition 8 (which defined the sacred civil institution of marriage according to God's definition), arguing that nothing is sacred in the world of the civil.

A history lesson to correct this misunderstanding is here.

More on the myth of the "separation of church and state" is here.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.