Since Jul 19, 1998

view home page, enter name:

Molon labe
(mo-lone lah-veh)

Two little words. With these two words, two concepts were verbalized that have lived for nearly two and a half Millennia. They signify and characterize both the heart of the Warrior, and the indomitable spirit of mankind. From the ancient Greek, they are the reply of the Spartan General-King Leonidas to Xerxes, the Persian Emperor who came with 600,000 of the fiercest fighting troops in the world to conquer and invade little Greece, then the center and birthplace of civilization as we know it. When Xerxes offered to spare the lives of Leonidas, his 300 personal bodyguards and a handful of Thebans and others who volunteered to defend their country, if they would lay down their arms, Leonidas shouted these two words back.

Molon Labe! (mo-lone lah-veh)
They mean, "---Come and get them!"

They live on today as the most notable quote in military history. And so began the classic example of courage and valor in its dismissal of overwhelming superiority of numbers, wherein the heart and spirit of brave men overcame insuperable odds. Today, there lies a plaque dedicated to these heroes all at the site.

It reads: "Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by, that here, obedient to their laws we lie."

We have adopted this defiant utterance as a battle cry in our war against oppression because it says so clearly and simply towards those who would take our arms. It signifies our determination to not strike the first blow, but also to not stand mute and allow our loved ones, and all that we believe in and stand for, to be trampled by men who would deprive us of our God-given ? or natural, if you will rights to suit their own ends.


Let me strive every moment of my life, to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, that all may profit by it.

Let me think of the right and lend all my assistance to those who need it, with no regard for anything but justice

Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage

Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens and my associates in everything I say and do

Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.

Here are archived collections of my links. Each archive has between 75 and 500 links. For historical purposes, as well as for reasons of my own design, they are organized by date and not by content.

1999.A Bookmark Archives.
2000.A FR Bookmark Archives.
2001.A FR Bookmark Archives.
2002.1 FR Bookmark Archives.
2002.3 FR Bookmark Archives.
2002.5 FR Bookmark Archives.
2002.E FR Bookmark Archives.
2003.2 FR Bookmark Archives.
2003.4 FR Bookmark Archives.
2003.12 FR Bookmark Archives
2004.7 FR Bookmark Archives
2004.11 FR Bookmark Archives
2005 Q1 Bookmarks
2005 Q2 Bookmarks

Walter E. Williams: Socialism is evil

July 28, 2004

What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]


1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

Here is a recent interview Ann gave:

John Hawkins: Why do you think USA Today hired you to write a column on the Democratic Convention and then killed your column?

Ann Coulter: I refused to include pie charts.

John Hawkins: What do you think of the claim made by people like Eric Alterman that the mainstream media is actually conservative?

Ann Coulter: Eric, they're called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and they're going to change your life. Ask your doctor if an S.S.R.I. is right for you.

John Hawkins: Has anyone approached you about doing a syndicated radio show or getting your own show on one of the Cable News Networks? I'd have to think somebody would be making an offer since you're almost guaranteed ratings.

Ann Coulter: Yes, but I refuse to wear a bow tie.

John Hawkins: When I last interviewed you back in late June of 2003, you were getting ready to start up your new blog "CoulterGeist" at Human Events. Whatever happened to your blog?

Ann Coulter: I decided that bloggers were just a bunch of losers with no audience and no credibility who sat around their living rooms in pajamas all day hatching crackpot theories that never pan out. They did a special about this on CBS News (on 60 minutes II) just the other night.

John Hawkins: I know you're a big proponent of racial profiling at our airports. But, don't you think that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment?

Ann Coulter: No, of course not. You think they have a right to search little old ladies in wheelchairs now? And if it were, we should change the Fourth Amendment by adding the words, "except in the case of Islamo-Fascists who want us all dead".

John Hawkins: Do you think we're going to be able to successfully help the Iraqis become a Democratic country?

Ann Coulter: I was kind of hoping they'd go Republican.

John Hawkins: A few Democrats like Zell Miller, Ron Miller, Christopher Hitchens, Ed Koch have nailed their own party for their non-serious approach to defending our country. Do you think it's more surprising that they've been wiling to nail their own party on national security or that more Democrats haven't been willing to step up and point out the obvious?

Ann Coulter: Unlike mainstream Democrats, the men you mention are to be commended for having a will to live.

John Hawkins: Do you think having John Kerry as our President would mean America would be more likely to be hit with another 9/11 style terrorist attack?

Ann Coulter: As I understand it from his policy proposals, such attacks would become mandatory.

John Hawkins: You caught a lot of flack for pointing out that Max Cleland wasn't actually injured in combat in Vietnam. However, it turns out that you were right and your critics were wrong. Did any of the people who accused you of lying about how Cleland was injured apologize or admit their mistake?

Ann Coulter: I assume that's a rhetorical question. Their "apologies" are re-printed in "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)"

John Hawkins: After Reagan's death, did you think it was amazing to see all these liberals who treated Ronald Reagan like a monster when he was in office and who opposed everything he ever did giving the Gipper credit for defeating the Soviet Union and trying to adopt Nancy Reagan (who they referred to as the Dragon Lady in the 80s) as their own because of her support of stem cell research?

Ann Coulter: Was I amazed to see liberals being liars, hypocrites, and historical revisionists? No. Were you?

John Hawkins: One of the many things you've said that really cheeses off liberals is,

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors".

Do you regret saying that?

Ann Coulter: Only that I didn't say it loud enough and in a large enough public forum. And when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was "We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV". My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred.

John Hawkins: A lot of your detractors on the right refer to you as the right-wing version of Michael or Al Franken. What do you think about that comparison?

Ann Coulter: The fact that only my detractors say this says it all.

John Hawkins: Any initial reaction to the $60 million dollar sexual harassment suit against Bill O'Reilly?

Ann Coulter: Last week I received an obscene phone call that began, "Ann from New York, you're in the Zone. What say you, and what are you wearing?" and ended, "I'll give you the last word."

John Hawkins: How about dashing off a quick sentence or even just a word or two about the following individuals...

George Bush: A 21st century Churchill.

Dick Cheney: Takes a licking, keeps on ticking.

Jonah Goldberg: Who?

Andrew Sullivan: Every inch a lady.

Tucker Carlson: See what happens when you try to be mainstream?

John Kerry: 30 years later he's still shooting himself in the foot.

Teresa Heinz Kerry: To be first lady, first you have to be a lady.

John Edwards: Jury's still out - expect a huge settlement.

Max Cleland: At least he earned his medals.

Dan Rather: A space alien -- and I have the Microsoft documents from the fifties. that prove it!

John Hawkins: Can you tell us a little bit about your new book, "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)"?

Ann Coulter: It's like Bill Clinton's book, only interesting. If you can't find it in your local bookstore, look behind the stacks of left-wing books about President Bush with the word "lie" in the title

John Hawkins: Are there any blogs you read regularly or semi-regularly these days?

Ann Coulter: Yes, but if I tell you they'll be over-run and I'll never be able to go there again.

John Hawkins: Is there anything else you'd like to say or promote before we finish up?

Ann Coulter: Yes, vote on November 2nd. Democrats get to vote as often as they like, so we should all vote at least once.

We the People Congress, in meeting assembled
in Washington, DC on November 13, 1999...

REMONSTRANCE We, the undersigned citizens of the United States of America, acting in good faith and impelled by our devotion to our Constitutional-Republic, present this Remonstrance to the leaders of our federal government in order to draw attention to and express deep concerns that have accumulated over many years regarding the federal income and social security tax system.

Our grievances are several:

The proof is manifest for all to see that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was illegally and fraudulently proclaimed to be ratified in 1913 by a lame-duck Secretary of State just days before he left office. An official attempt by a leading, currently-sitting U.S. Senator to pay to have the evidence suppressed, to avoid publication and to maintain secrecy, has been exposed at this meeting this day.

The federal courts for decades, ruling in cases challenging the constitutional validity of the 16th Amendment, have issued a series of largely unintelligible rulings that fail even to recognize the basic question of whether the income tax is a direct tax or an excise tax, suggesting, for instance, that the income tax is "in the nature of" an indirect, excise tax, reflecting the mood of powerful special interests of that day.

Again, the federal courts since 1985, on hearing cases challenging the ratification of the 16th Amendment as being fraudulent, have ruled that the issue of fraudulence is political and, therefore, non-justiciable -- to be dealt with by Congress. This obviously constitutes an evasion of responsibility by the courts, since fraud is a legal, rather than a political question. In ruling in this way, the courts have abdicated their constitutional responsibilities under our system of checks and balances.

Congress, in turn, has called this issue of fraud to be a matter for the courts.

In addition to the 16th Amendment ratification issue, there simply is no law or regulation that makes most citizens liable to file and pay federal income and social security taxes nor to have those taxes withheld from the money they earn, yet, the Internal Revenue Code is enforced by the Executive as though the taxes were, indeed, compulsory, imposing interest and penalties, including incarceration for willful failure to file the voluntary tax.

Citizens have the right to clear and precisely worded laws that are not vague. Yet, the income tax laws are deliberately written in the most disorganized manner imaginable, with the frequent use of double-negatives, circular reasoning, disconnected sections without reference or cross-reference, and other legal gimmicks that intentionally obfuscate and confuse matters beyond comprehension of even highly trained professionals. It must be concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in 1916, attempted to keep the income tax constitutional by suggesting that it was "in the nature" of an excise tax, if required to rule today on the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment, would in no way be able to find the 1999 tax constitutional on the simple basis that it is clearly not uniform, which is a constitutional mandate for excise taxes.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) says the income tax is voluntary. This is an obvious fiction. In their application and enforcement, the tax code and the regulations have all the force and effect of compulsory law. Yet, the notion that the tax is voluntary has been confirmed by a federal appeals court. Few people know that the tax is voluntary and that when they "voluntarily" submit their tax forms they also "voluntarily" waive their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. This is a form of coercion to which the courts have turned a blind eye, ruling that the waiver of 5th Amendment rights was "voluntary".

Many outrageous IRS practices have been revealed and detailed to the public by congressional hearings, but little has been done about it.

Thousands of citizens are jailed or financially destroyed by the IRS for not paying taxes that are not expressly sanctioned by law, while being denied their most basic due process rights. And, since the courts have ruled that the fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment is a political question, by definition, those in jail are political prisoners, a condition that is illegal in this country.

The IRS is conspicuously used by the Executive to carry out retribution against political adversaries. This is a growing threat to fundamental freedoms.

Federal judges, members of Congress, and other government officials are themselves afraid of the IRS, which compiles and maintains secret files on them.

The abuses and lawlessness exemplified by the governmental conduct described above undermine the foundations of our nation and tear apart the very fabric of our Constitutional-Republic.

Therefore, we hereby petition the leaders of our federal government to take immediate and forthright action that will result in the redress of these grievances. We call for a thorough overhaul of the IRS and its administrative procedures to make its operations and agents completely accountable to the Constitution and constitutional law. We demand the immediate release of all political prisoners. We call for the creation of a Judicial Review Commission to hear and decide on complaints against federal judges who make rulings that support violations of the rights of citizens which are rooted and grounded in the Constitution and constitutional law.


From Elder Statesman John Hospers * * *


Dear Libertarian:

As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972, and was the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party s Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in 1972. I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year -- more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party -- I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans.

There is a belief that s common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties -- between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty.

The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a transformation in recent years; moderate, pro-American, and strong defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the Democratic Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of the contemporary Democratic Party.

Today s Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it, including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is construed as a defeat for them.

The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loath private property. It is opposed to free speech ; witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and Kerry s threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact hate speech and hate crime laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will call it defending human rights. This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents.

There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing violence against Republican campaign headquarters all over the country, and Democrat thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. Yet not a word about it from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous trend to increase dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly accepted by the liberal-left mainstream media. This is ominous sign of worse things to come.

Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed repeatedly in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on the United Nations than on the United States: for example he favors the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and opposed the withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. He has been quoted as saying that it is honorable for those in the U.S. military to die under the flag of the U.N. but not that of the U.S. Presumably he and a small cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, via the U.N. or some other world body which will make all decisions for the whole world concerning private property, the use of our military, gun ownership, taxation, and environmental policy (to name a few). In his thirty-year career he has demonstrated utter contempt for America, national security, constitutional republicanism, democracy, private property, and free markets.

His wife s foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry administration.

Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming election via a legal coup, e.g. to claim victory on election night no matter what the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere and everywhere they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a mockery of our election process, throwing the entire process into chaos -- possibly for months -- and significantly weakening our ability to conduct foreign policy and protect ourselves domestically. Let me repeat: we are facing the very real possibility of a political coup occurring in America. Al Gore very nearly got away with one in 2000. Do not underestimate what Kerry and his ilk are going to attempt to do to America.

George Bush has been criticized for many things ; and in many cases with justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the First Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on failing to protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great virtue, however, is that he has stood up -- knowingly at grave risk to his political viability -- to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property. Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence, to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with the big one: 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. and indeed to the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s involving weapons of mass destruction, including suitcase nuclear devices.

Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens the world just as Nazis fascism and Soviet communism did in previous decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.

The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal with the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot Act seem to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on reality). But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face of it, and in spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation campaign that any American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam s regime is no longer a major player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah. Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude safer.

National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I attended in l962, in response to complaints that taxes are too high (then 20%), Pay 30% if you need it for defense. It is not the amount but the purpose served that decides what is too much. And the purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face of vastly increased threats to its existence.

Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other projects in the wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. For example:

(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax. If such a change were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of liberty and prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry.

(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone, could bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it would make his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has already repudiated any such change in social security laws.

The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans, who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political misconceptions. It will involve a near-total restructuring of the educational system, which today serves the liberal-left education bureaucracy and Democratic Party, not the student or parent. It will require a merciless and continuous expose of the bias in the mainstream media (the Internet, blogs, and talk radio have been extremely successful in this regard over the past few years). And it will require understanding the influence and importance of the Teresa Kerry-like Foundations who work in the shadows to undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances.

Most of all, it will require the American people -- including many libertarians "to realize the overwhelming dangerousness of the American Left "; a Fifth Column comprised of the elements mentioned above, dedicated to achieving their goal of a totally internationally dominated America, and a true world-wide Fascism.

Thus far their long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide, and along the way it might well succeed in preserving Western civilization against the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, and may shortly have the weapons capability, to bring it to an end.

When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a "minor party" candidate who cannot possibly win, just to get the word out and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical Battle Ground states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.

We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote libertarian, we may win a tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.

John Hospers

Los Angeles, CA

Am I a Bad American ?
by Ted Nugent

I'm A Bad American

This pretty much sums it up for me.

I like big trucks, big boats, big houses, and naturally, pretty women.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some midlevel governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts squirting out babies.

I don't care about appearing compassionate.

I think playing with toy guns doesn't make you a killer - I believe ignoring your kids and giving them Prozac might.

I think I'm doing better than the homeless.

I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad. This is my life to live, and not necessarily up to others expectations.

I know what SEX is and there are not varying degrees of it.

I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. But if you want to that's fine; just don't feel like everyone else should have to.

I believe that if you are selling me a Dairy Queen shake, a pack of cigarettes, or hotel room you do it in English. As of matter of fact, if you are an American citizen you should speak English. My uncles and forefathers shouldn't have had to die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come disrespect ours, and make us bend to your will.

Get over it. I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you're running from them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word 'freeze' or 'stop' in English, see the previous line. I don't use the excuse "it's for the children" as a shield for unpopular opinions or actions. I know how to count votes and I feel much safer letting a machine with no political affiliation do a recount when needed.

I know what the definition of lying is, and it isn't based on the word "is" -- ever.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you qualify for and special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans, etc., so you can open a hotel, 7-Eleven, trinket shop, or any [****] thing else, while the indigenous peoples can't get past a high school education because they can't afford it.

I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet.

I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny.

I want them to bring back safe and sane fireworks.

I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or Marilyn Manson sang, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to that crap from someone else's car when I'm stopped at a red light. But I respect your right to.

I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment than working at Blockbuster or Jack In The Box.

I don't want to eat or drink anything with the words light, lite or fat-free on the package.

Our soldiers did not go to some foreign country and risk their lives in vain and defend our Constitution so that decades later you can tell me it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. The guys who wrote it were light years ahead of anyone today, and they meant what they said -- now leave the document alone, or there's going to be trouble.

I don't hate the rich.

I help the poor.

I know wrestling is fake.

I've never owned, or was a slave, and a large percentage of our forefathers weren't wealthy enough to own one either. Please stop blaming me because some prior white people were idiots -- and remember, tons of white, Indian, Chinese, and other races have been enslaved too -- it was wrong for every one of them.

I believe a self-righteous liberal with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude.

I want to know exactly which church is it where the "Reverend" Jessie Jackson preaches; and, what exactly is his job function.

I own a gun, you can own a gun, and any red blooded American should be allowed to own a gun, but if you use it in a crime, then you will serve the time.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it makes you mad, then invent the next operating system that's better and put your name on the building. Ask your buddy that invented the internet to help you.

I don't believe in hate crime legislation. Even suggesting it makes me mad. You're telling me that someone who is a minority, gay, disabled, another nationality, or otherwise different from the mainstream of this country has more value as a human being that I do as a white male. [****], if someone kills anyone, I'd say that it's a hate crime. We don't need more laws! Let's enforce the ones we already have.

I think turkey bacon, turkey beef, turkey fake anything sucks.

I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child -- it takes a parent with the [****] (guts) to stand up to the kid and spank his butt and say "NO!" when it's necessary to do so.

I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Ole Yeller.

I didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid.

I will not be frowned upon or be looked down upon or be made to keep silent because I have these beliefs and opinions. I thought this country allowed me that right. I will not conform or compromise just to keep from hurting somebody's feelings. I'm neither angry nor disenfranchised, no matter how desperately the mainstream media would like the world to believe otherwise.

Yes, I guess by some people's definition, I may be a bad American.

But that's tough.


When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel am I, making riches and increase, enriching Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur; who reestablished Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu; who conquered the four quarters of the world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his lord who daily pays his devotions in Saggil; the royal scion whom Sin made; who enriched Ur; the humble, the reverent, who brings wealth to Gish-shir-gal; the white king, heard of Shamash, the mighty, who again laid the foundations of Sippara; who clothed the gravestones of Malkat with green; who made E-babbar great, which is like the heavens, the warrior who guarded Larsa and renewed E-babbar, with Shamash as his helper; the lord who granted new life to Uruk, who brought plenteous water to its inhabitants, raised the head of E-anna, and perfected the beauty of Anu and Nana; shield of the land, who reunited the scattered inhabitants of Isin; who richly endowed E-gal-mach; the protecting king of the city, brother of the god Zamama; who firmly founded the farms of Kish, crowned E-me-te-ursag with glory, redoubled the great holy treasures of Nana, managed the temple of Harsag-kalama; the grave of the enemy, whose help brought about the victory; who increased the power of Cuthah; made all glorious in E-shidlam, the black steer, who gored the enemy; beloved of the god Nebo, who rejoiced the inhabitants of Borsippa, the Sublime; who is indefatigable for E-zida; the divine king of the city; the White, Wise; who broadened the fields of Dilbat, who heaped up the harvests for Urash; the Mighty, the lord to whom come scepter and crown, with which he clothes himself; the Elect of Ma-ma; who fixed the temple bounds of Kesh, who made rich the holy feasts of Nin-tu; the provident, solicitous, who provided food and drink for Lagash and Girsu, who provided large sacrificial offerings for the temple of Ningirsu; who captured the enemy, the Elect of the oracle who fulfilled the prediction of Hallab, who rejoiced the heart of Anunit; the pure prince, whose prayer is accepted by Adad; who satisfied the heart of Adad, the warrior, in Karkar, who restored the vessels for worship in E-ud-gal-gal; the king who granted life to the city of Adab; the guide of E-mach; the princely king of the city, the irresistible warrior, who granted life to the inhabitants of Mashkanshabri, and brought abundance to the temple of Shidlam; the White, Potent, who penetrated the secret cave of the bandits, saved the inhabitants of Malka from misfortune, and fixed their home fast in wealth; who established pure sacrificial gifts for Ea and Dam-gal-nun-na, who made his kingdom everlastingly great; the princely king of the city, who subjected the districts on the Ud-kib-nun-na Canal to the sway of Dagon, his Creator; who spared the inhabitants of Mera and Tutul; the sublime prince, who makes the face of Ninni shine; who presents holy meals to the divinity of Nin-a-zu, who cared for its inhabitants in their need, provided a portion for them in Babylon in peace; the shepherd of the oppressed and of the slaves; whose deeds find favor before Anunit, who provided for Anunit in the temple of Dumash in the suburb of Agade; who recognizes the right, who rules by law; who gave back to the city of Ashur its protecting god; who let the name of Ishtar of Nineveh remain in E-mish-mish; the Sublime, who humbles himself before the great gods; successor of Sumula-il; the mighty son of Sin-muballit; the royal scion of Eternity; the mighty monarch, the sun of Babylon, whose rays shed light over the land of Sumer and Akkad; the king, obeyed by the four quarters of the world; Beloved of Ninni, am I.

When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.


If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.


If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.


If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.


If he satisfy the elders to impose a fine of grain or money, he shall receive the fine that the action produces.


If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.


If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.


If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.


If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.


If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say "A merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses," and if the owner of the thing say, "I will bring witnesses who know my property," then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their testimony—both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the estate of the merchant.


If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses before whom he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who identify it, then the buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and the owner receives the lost article.


If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.


If the witnesses be not at hand, then shall the judge set a limit, at the expiration of six months. If his witnesses have not appeared within the six months, he is an evil-doer, and shall bear the fine of the pending case.


If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.


If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.


If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.


If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.


If the slave will not give the name of the master, the finder shall bring him to the palace; a further investigation must follow, and the slave shall be returned to his master.


If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death.


If the slave that he caught run away from him, then shall he swear to the owners of the slave, and he is free of all blame.


If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.


If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.


If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and . . . on whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for the goods stolen.


If persons are stolen, then shall the community and . . . pay one mina of silver to their relatives.


If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire.


If a chieftain or a man (common soldier), who has been ordered to go upon the king's highway for war does not go, but hires a mercenary, if he withholds the compensation, then shall this officer or man be put to death, and he who represented him shall take possession of his house.


If a chieftain or man be caught in the misfortune of the king (captured in battle), and if his fields and garden be given to another and he take possession, if he return and reaches his place, his field and garden shall be returned to him, he shall take it over again.


If a chieftain or a man be caught in the misfortune of a king, if his son is able to enter into possession, then the field and garden shall be given to him, he shall take over the fee of his father.


If his son is still young, and can not take possession, a third of the field and garden shall be given to his mother, and she shall bring him up.


If a chieftain or a man leave his house, garden, and field and hires it out, and some one else takes possession of his house, garden, and field and uses it for three years: if the first owner return and claims his house, garden, and field, it shall not be given to him, but he who has taken possession of it and used it shall continue to use it.


If he hire it out for one year and then return, the house, garden, and field shall be given back to him, and he shall take it over again.


If a chieftain or a man is captured on the "Way of the King" (in war), and a merchant buy him free, and bring him back to his place; if he have the means in his house to buy his freedom, he shall buy himself free: if he have nothing in his house with which to buy himself free, he shall be bought free by the temple of his community; if there be nothing in the temple with which to buy him free, the court shall buy his freedom. His field, garden, and house shall not be given for the purchase of his freedom.


If a . . . or a . . . enter himself as withdrawn from the "Way of the King," and send a mercenary as substitute, but withdraw him, then the . . . or . . . shall be put to death.


If a . . . or a . . . harm the property of a captain, injure the captain, or take away from the captain a gift presented to him by the king, then the . . . or . . . shall be put to death.


If any one buy the cattle or sheep which the king has given to chieftains from him, he loses his money.


The field, garden, and house of a chieftain, of a man, or of one subject to quit-rent, can not be sold.


If any one buy the field, garden, and house of a chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent, his contract tablet of sale shall be broken (declared invalid) and he loses his money. The field, garden, and house return to their owners.


A chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent can not assign his tenure of field, house, and garden to his wife or daughter, nor can he assign it for a debt.


He may, however, assign a field, garden, or house which he has bought, and holds as property, to his wife or daughter or give it for debt.


He may sell field, garden, and house to a merchant (royal agents) or to any other public official, the buyer holding field, house, and garden for its usufruct.


If any one fence in the field, garden, and house of a chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent, furnishing the palings therefor; if the chieftain, man, or one subject to quit-rent return to field, garden, and house, the palings which were given to him become his property.


If any one take over a field to till it, and obtain no harvest therefrom, it must be proved that he did no work on the field, and he must deliver grain, just as his neighbor raised, to the owner of the field.


If he do not till the field, but let it lie fallow, he shall give grain like his neighbor's to the owner of the field, and the field which he let lie fallow he must plow and sow and return to its owner.


If any one take over a waste-lying field to make it arable, but is lazy, and does not make it arable, he shall plow the fallow field in the fourth year, harrow it and till it, and give it back to its owner, and for each ten gan (a measure of area) ten gur of grain shall be paid.


If a man rent his field for tillage for a fixed rental, and receive the rent of his field, but bad weather come and destroy the harvest, the injury falls upon the tiller of the soil.


If he do not receive a fixed rental for his field, but lets it on half or third shares of the harvest, the grain on the field shall be divided proportionately between the tiller and the owner.


If the tiller, because he did not succeed in the first year, has had the soil tilled by others, the owner may raise no objection; the field has been cultivated and he receives the harvest according to agreement.


If any one owe a debt for a loan, and a storm prostrates the grain, or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no rent for this year.


If any one take money from a merchant, and give the merchant a field tillable for corn or sesame and order him to plant corn or sesame in the field, and to harvest the crop; if the cultivator plant corn or sesame in the field, at the harvest the corn or sesame that is in the field shall belong to the owner of the field and he shall pay corn as rent, for the money he received from the merchant, and the livelihood of the cultivator shall he give to the merchant.


If he give a cultivated corn-field or a cultivated sesame-field, the corn or sesame in the field shall belong to the owner of the field, and he shall return the money to the merchant as rent.


If he have no money to repay, then he shall pay in corn or sesame in place of the money as rent for what he received from the merchant, according to the royal tariff.


If the cultivator do not plant corn or sesame in the field, the debtor's contract is not weakened.


If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.


If he be not able to replace the corn, then he and his possessions shall be divided among the farmers whose corn he has flooded.


If any one open his ditches to water his crop, but is careless, and the water flood the field of his neighbor, then he shall pay his neighbor corn for his loss.


If a man let in the water, and the water overflow the plantation of his neighbor, he shall pay ten gur of corn for every ten gan of land.


If a shepherd, without the permission of the owner of the field, and without the knowledge of the owner of the sheep, lets the sheep into a field to graze, then the owner of the field shall harvest his crop, and the shepherd, who had pastured his flock there without permission of the owner of the field, shall pay to the owner twenty gur of corn for every ten gan.


If after the flocks have left the pasture and been shut up in the common fold at the city gate, any shepherd let them into a field and they graze there, this shepherd shall take possession of the field which he has allowed to be grazed on, and at the harvest he must pay sixty gur of corn for every ten gan.


If any man, without the knowledge of the owner of a garden, fell a tree in a garden he shall pay half a mina in money.


If any one give over a field to a gardener, for him to plant it as a garden, if he work at it, and care for it for four years, in the fifth year the owner and the gardener shall divide it, the owner taking his part in charge.


If the gardener has not completed the planting of the field, leaving one part unused, this shall be assigned to him as his.


If he do not plant the field that was given over to him as a garden, if it be arable land (for corn or sesame) the gardener shall pay the owner the produce of the field for the years that he let it lie fallow, according to the product of neighboring fields, put the field in arable condition and return it to its owner.


If he transform waste land into arable fields and return it to its owner, the latter shall pay him for one year ten gur for ten gan.


If any one hand over his garden to a gardener to work, the gardener shall pay to its owner two-thirds of the produce of the garden, for so long as he has it in possession, and the other third shall he keep.


If the gardener do not work in the garden and the product fall off, the gardener shall pay in proportion to other neighboring gardens.

[Here a portion of the text is missing, apparently comprising thirty-four paragraphs.]


. . . interest for the money, as much as he has received, he shall give a note therefor, and on the day, when they settle, pay to the merchant.


If there are no mercantile arrangements in the place whither he went, he shall leave the entire amount of money which he received with the broker to give to the merchant.


If a merchant entrust money to an agent (broker) for some investment, and the broker suffer a loss in the place to which he goes, he shall make good the capital to the merchant.


If, while on the journey, an enemy take away from him anything that he had, the broker shall swear by God and be free of obligation.


If a merchant give an agent corn, wool, oil, or any other goods to transport, the agent shall give a receipt for the amount, and compensate the merchant therefor. Then he shall obtain a receipt form the merchant for the money that he gives the merchant.


If the agent is careless, and does not take a receipt for the money which he gave the merchant, he can not consider the unreceipted money as his own.


If the agent accept money from the merchant, but have a quarrel with the merchant (denying the receipt), then shall the merchant swear before God and witnesses that he has given this money to the agent, and the agent shall pay him three times the sum.


If the merchant cheat the agent, in that as the latter has returned to him all that had been given him, but the merchant denies the receipt of what had been returned to him, then shall this agent convict the merchant before God and the judges, and if he still deny receiving what the agent had given him shall pay six times the sum to the agent.


If a tavern-keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water.


If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death.


If any one be on a journey and entrust silver, gold, precious stones, or any movable property to another, and wish to recover it from him; if the latter do not bring all of the property to the appointed place, but appropriate it to his own use, then shall this man, who did not bring the property to hand it over, be convicted, and he shall pay fivefold for all that had been entrusted to him.


If any one have consignment of corn or money, and he take from the granary or box without the knowledge of the owner, then shall he who took corn without the knowledge of the owner out of the granary or money out of the box be legally convicted, and repay the corn he has taken. And he shall lose whatever commission was paid to him, or due him.


If a man have no claim on another for corn and money, and try to demand it by force, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver in every case.


If any one have a claim for corn or money upon another and imprison him; if the prisoner die in prison a natural death, the case shall go no further.


If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death; if it was a slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina of gold, and all that the master of the prisoner gave he shall forfeit.


If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free.


If he give a male or female slave away for forced labor, and the merchant sublease them, or sell them for money, no objection can be raised.


If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and he sell the maid servant who has borne him children, for money, the money which the merchant has paid shall be repaid to him by the owner of the slave and she shall be freed.


If any one store corn for safe keeping in another person's house, and any harm happen to the corn in storage, or if the owner of the house open the granary and take some of the corn, or if especially he deny that the corn was stored in his house: then the owner of the corn shall claim his corn before God (on oath), and the owner of the house shall pay its owner for all of the corn that he took.


If any one store corn in another man's house he shall pay him storage at the rate of one gur for every five ka of corn per year.


If any one give another silver, gold, or anything else to keep, he shall show everything to some witness, draw up a contract, and then hand it over for safe keeping.


If he turn it over for safe keeping without witness or contract, and if he to whom it was given deny it, then he has no legitimate claim.


If any one deliver silver, gold, or anything else to another for safe keeping, before a witness, but he deny it, he shall be brought before a judge, and all that he has denied he shall pay in full.


If any one place his property with another for safe keeping, and there, either through thieves or robbers, his property and the property of the other man be lost, the owner of the house, through whose neglect the loss took place, shall compensate the owner for all that was given to him in charge. But the owner of the house shall try to follow up and recover his property, and take it away from the thief.


If any one who has not lost his goods state that they have been lost, and make false claims: if he claim his goods and amount of injury before God, even though he has not lost them, he shall be fully compensated for all his loss claimed. (I.e., the oath is all that is needed.)


If any one "point the finger" (slander) at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked. (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair.)


If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.


If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.


If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.


If a man bring a charge against one's wife, but she is not surprised with another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.


If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.


If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his house, but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house: because this wife did not keep her court, and went to another house, she shall be judicially condemned and thrown into the water.


If any one be captured in war and there is not sustenance in his house, if then his wife go to another house this woman shall be held blameless.


If a man be taken prisoner in war and there be no sustenance in his house and his wife go to another house and bear children; and if later her husband return and come to his home: then this wife shall return to her husband, but the children follow their father.


If any one leave his house, run away, and then his wife go to another house, if then he return, and wishes to take his wife back: because he fled from his home and ran away, the wife of this runaway shall not return to her husband.


If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.


If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go.


If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold as a gift of release.


If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.


If a man's wife, who lives in his house, wishes to leave it, plunges into debt, tries to ruin her house, neglects her husband, and is judicially convicted: if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way, and he gives her nothing as a gift of release. If her husband does not wish to release her, and if he take another wife, she shall remain as servant in her husband's house.


If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: "You are not congenial to me," the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father's house.


If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water.


If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.


If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he intend to take another wife: if he take this second wife, and bring her into the house, this second wife shall not be allowed equality with his wife.


If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.


If she have not borne him children, then her mistress may sell her for money.


If a man take a wife, and she be seized by disease, if he then desire to take a second wife he shall not put away his wife, who has been attacked by disease, but he shall keep her in the house which he has built and support her so long as she lives.


If this woman does not wish to remain in her husband's house, then he shall compensate her for the dowry that she brought with her from her father's house, and she may go.


If a man give his wife a field, garden, and house and a deed therefor, if then after the death of her husband the sons raise no claim, then the mother may bequeath all to one of her sons whom she prefers, and need leave nothing to his brothers.


If a woman who lived in a man's house made an agreement with her husband, that no creditor can arrest her, and has given a document therefor: if that man, before he married that woman, had a debt, the creditor can not hold the woman for it. But if the woman, before she entered the man's house, had contracted a debt, her creditor can not arrest her husband therefor.


If after the woman had entered the man's house, both contracted a debt, both must pay the merchant.


If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man's wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled.


If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).


If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse with her, but he (the father) afterward defile her, and be surprised, then he shall be bound and cast into the water (drowned).


If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her, and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and compensate her for all that she brought out of her father's house. She may marry the man of her heart.


If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.


If any one be surprised after his father with his chief wife, who has borne children, he shall be driven out of his father's house.


If any one, who has brought chattels into his father-in-law's house, and has paid the purchase-money, looks for another wife, and says to his father-in-law: "I do not want your daughter," the girl's father may keep all that he had brought.


If a man bring chattels into the house of his father-in-law, and pay the "purchase price" (for his wife): if then the father of the girl say: "I will not give you my daughter," he shall give him back all that he brought with him.


If a man bring chattels into his father-in-law's house and pay the "purchase price," if then his friend slander him, and his father-in-law say to the young husband: "You shall not marry my daughter," the he shall give back to him undiminished all that he had brought with him; but his wife shall not be married to the friend.


If a man marry a woman, and she bear sons to him; if then this woman die, then shall her father have no claim on her dowry; this belongs to her sons.


If a man marry a woman and she bear him no sons; if then this woman die, if the "purchase price" which he had paid into the house of his father-in-law is repaid to him, her husband shall have no claim upon the dowry of this woman; it belongs to her father's house.


If his father-in-law do not pay back to him the amount of the "purchase price" he may subtract the amount of the "Purchase price" from the dowry, and then pay the remainder to her father's house.


If a man give to one of his sons whom he prefers a field, garden, and house, and a deed therefor: if later the father die, and the brothers divide the estate, then they shall first give him the present of his father, and he shall accept it; and the rest of the paternal property shall they divide.


If a man take wives for his son, but take no wife for his minor son, and if then he die: if the sons divide the estate, they shall set aside besides his portion the money for the "purchase price" for the minor brother who had taken no wife as yet, and secure a wife for him.


If a man marry a wife and she bear him children: if this wife die and he then take another wife and she bear him children: if then the father die, the sons must not partition the estate according to the mothers, they shall divide the dowries of their mothers only in this way; the paternal estate they shall divide equally with one another.


If a man wish to put his son out of his house, and declare before the judge: "I want to put my son out," then the judge shall examine into his reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault, for which he can be rightfully put out, the father shall not put him out.


If he be guilty of a grave fault, which should rightfully deprive him of the filial relationship, the father shall forgive him the first time; but if he be guilty of a grave fault a second time the father may deprive his son of all filial relation.


If his wife bear sons to a man, or his maid-servant have borne sons, and the father while still living says to the children whom his maid-servant has borne: "My sons," and he count them with the sons of his wife; if then the father die, then the sons of the wife and of the maid-servant shall divide the paternal property in common. The son of the wife is to partition and choose.


If, however, the father while still living did not say to the sons of the maid-servant: "My sons," and then the father dies, then the sons of the maid-servant shall not share with the sons of the wife, but the freedom of the maid and her sons shall be granted. The sons of the wife shall have no right to enslave the sons of the maid; the wife shall take her dowry (from her father), and the gift that her husband gave her and deeded to her (separate from dowry, or the purchase-money paid her father), and live in the home of her husband: so long as she lives she shall use it, it shall not be sold for money. Whatever she leaves shall belong to her children.


If her husband made her no gift, she shall be compensated for her gift, and she shall receive a portion from the estate of her husband, equal to that of one child. If her sons oppress her, to force her out of the house, the judge shall examine into the matter, and if the sons are at fault the woman shall not leave her husband's house. If the woman desire to leave the house, she must leave to her sons the gift which her husband gave her, but she may take the dowry of her father's house. Then she may marry the man of her heart.


If this woman bear sons to her second husband, in the place to which she went, and then die, her earlier and later sons shall divide the dowry between them.


If she bear no sons to her second husband, the sons of her first husband shall have the dowry.


If a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry the daughter of a free man, and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no right to enslave the children of the free.


If, however, a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry a man's daughter, and after he marries her she bring a dowry from a father's house, if then they both enjoy it and found a household, and accumulate means, if then the slave die, then she who was free born may take her dowry, and all that her husband and she had earned; she shall divide them into two parts, one-half the master for the slave shall take, and the other half shall the free-born woman take for her children. If the free-born woman had no gift she shall take all that her husband and she had earned and divide it into two parts; and the master of the slave shall take one-half and she shall take the other for her children.


If a widow, whose children are not grown, wishes to enter another house (remarry), she shall not enter it without the knowledge of the judge. If she enter another house the judge shall examine the state of the house of her first husband. Then the house of her first husband shall be entrusted to the second husband and the woman herself as managers. And a record must be made thereof. She shall keep the house in order, bring up the children, and not sell the house-hold utensils. He who buys the utensils of the children of a widow shall lose his money, and the goods shall return to their owners.


If a "devoted woman" or a prostitute to whom her father has given a dowry and a deed therefor, but if in this deed it is not stated that she may bequeath it as she pleases, and has not explicitly stated that she has the right of disposal; if then her father die, then her brothers shall hold her field and garden, and give her corn, oil, and milk according to her portion, and satisfy her. If her brothers do not give her corn, oil, and milk according to her share, then her field and garden shall support her. She shall have the usufruct of field and garden and all that her father gave her so long as she lives, but she can not sell or assign it to others. Her position of inheritance belongs to her brothers.


If a "sister of a god," or a prostitute, receive a gift from her father, and a deed in which it has been explicitly stated that she may dispose of it as she pleases, and give her complete disposition thereof: if then her father die, then she may leave her property to whomsoever she pleases. Her brothers can raise no claim thereto.


If a father give a present to his daughter—either marriageable or a prostitute (unmarriageable)—and then die, then she is to receive a portion as a child from the paternal estate, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.


If a father devote a temple-maid or temple-virgin to God and give her no present: if then the father die, she shall receive the third of a child's portion from the inheritance of her father's house, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.


If a father devote his daughter as a wife of Mardi of Babylon (as in 181), and give her no present, nor a deed; if then her father die, then shall she receive one-third of her portion as a child of her father's house from her brothers, but Marduk may leave her estate to whomsoever she wishes.


If a man give his daughter by a concubine a dowry, and a husband, and a deed; if then her father die, she shall receive no portion from the paternal estate.


If a man do not give a dowry to his daughter by a concubine, and no husband; if then her father die, her brother shall give her a dowry according to her father's wealth and secure a husband for her.


If a man adopt a child and to his name as son, and rear him, this grown son can not be demanded back again.


If a man adopt a son, and if after he has taken him he injure his foster father and mother, then this adopted son shall return to his father's house.


The son of a paramour in the palace

service, or of a prostitute, can not be demanded back.

If an artizan has undertaken to rear a child and teaches him his craft, he can not be demanded back.

If he has not taught him his craft, this adopted son may return to his father's house.


If a man does not maintain a child that he has adopted as a son and reared with his other children, then his adopted son may return to his father's house.


If a man, who had adopted a son and reared him, founded a household, and had children, wish to put this adopted son out, then this son shall not simply go his way. His adoptive father shall give him of his wealth one-third of a child's portion, and then he may go. He shall not give him of the field, garden, and house.


If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off.


If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father's house, and desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his father's house, then shall his eye be put out.


If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.


If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.


If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye ]


If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.


If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.


If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.


If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. [ A tooth for a tooth ]


If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a gold mina.


If any one strike the body of a man higher in rank than he, he shall receive sixty blows with an ox-whip in public.


If a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man or equal rank, he shall pay one gold mina.


If a freed man strike the body of another freed man, he shall pay ten shekels in money.


If the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear shall be cut off.


If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians.


If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money.


If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.


If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.


If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.


If a woman of the free class lose her child by a blow, he shall pay five shekels in money.


If this woman die, he shall pay half a mina.


If he strike the maid-servant of a man, and she lose her child, he shall pay two shekels in money.


If this maid-servant die, he shall pay one-third of a mina.


If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.


If the patient be a freed man, he receives five shekels.


If he be the slave of some one, his owner shall give the physician two shekels.


If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.


If a physician make a large incision in the slave of a freed man, and kill him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.


If he had opened a tumor with the operating knife, and put out his eye, he shall pay half his value.


If a physician heal the broken bone or diseased soft part of a man, the patient shall pay the physician five shekels in money.


If he were a freed man he shall pay three shekels.


If he were a slave his owner shall pay the physician two shekels.


If a veterinary surgeon perform a serious operation on an ass or an ox, and cure it, the owner shall pay the surgeon one-sixth of a shekel as a fee.


If he perform a serious operation on an ass or ox, and kill it, he shall pay the owner one-fourth of its value.


If a barber, without the knowledge of his master, cut the sign of a slave on a slave not to be sold, the hands of this barber shall be cut off.


If any one deceive a barber, and have him mark a slave not for sale with the sign of a slave, he shall be put to death, and buried in his house. The barber shall swear: "I did not mark him wittingly," and shall be guiltless.


If a builder build a house for some one and complete it, he shall give him a fee of two shekels in money for each sar of surface.


If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.


If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.


If it kill a slave of the owner, then he shall pay slave for slave to the owner of the house.


If it ruin goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means.


If a builder build a house for some one, even though he has not yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means.


If a shipbuilder build a boat of sixty gur for a man, he shall pay him a fee of two shekels in money.


If a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it tight, if during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers injury, the shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it together tight at his own expense. The tight boat he shall give to the boat owner.


If a man rent his boat to a sailor, and the sailor is careless, and the boat is wrecked or goes aground, the sailor shall give the owner of the boat another boat as compensation.


If a man hire a sailor and his boat, and provide it with corn, clothing, oil and dates, and other things of the kind needed for fitting it: if the sailor is careless, the boat is wrecked, and its contents ruined, then the sailor shall compensate for the boat which was wrecked and all in it that he ruined.


If a sailor wreck any one's ship, but saves it, he shall pay the half of its value in money.


If a man hire a sailor, he shall pay him six gur of corn per year.


If a merchantman run against a ferryboat, and wreck it, the master of the ship that was wrecked shall seek justice before God; the master of the merchantman, which wrecked the ferryboat, must compensate the owner for the boat and all that he ruined.


If any one impresses an ox for forced labor, he shall pay one-third of a mina in money.


If any one hire oxen for a year, he shall pay four gur of corn for plow-oxen.


As rent of herd cattle he shall pay three gur of corn to the owner.


If any one hire an ox or an ass, and a lion kill it in the field, the loss is upon its owner.


If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen.


If a man hire an ox, and he break its leg or cut the ligament of its neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox.


If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner one-half of its value.


If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money.


If any one hire an ox, and God strike it that it die, the man who hired it shall swear by God and be considered guiltless.


If while an ox is passing on the street (market) some one push it, and kill it, the owner can set up no claim in the suit (against the hirer).


If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money.


If he kill a man's slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina.


If any one agree with another to tend his field, give him seed, entrust a yoke of oxen to him, and bind him to cultivate the field, if he steal the corn or plants, and take them for himself, his hands shall be hewn off.


If he take the seed-corn for himself, and do not use the yoke of oxen, he shall compensate him for the amount of the seed-corn.


If he sublet the man's yoke of oxen or steal the seed-corn, planting nothing in the field, he shall be convicted, and for each one hundred gan he shall pay sixty gur of corn.


If his community will not pay for him, then he shall be placed in that field with the cattle (at work).


If any one hire a field laborer, he shall pay him eight gur of corn per year.


If any one hire an ox-driver, he shall pay him six gur of corn per year.


If any one steal a water-wheel from the field, he shall pay five shekels in money to its owner.


If any one steal a shadduf (used to draw water from the river or canal) or a plow, he shall pay three shekels in money.


If any one hire a herdsman for cattle or sheep, he shall pay him eight gur of corn per annum.


If any one, a cow or a sheep . . .


If he kill the cattle or sheep that were given to him, he shall compensate the owner with cattle for cattle and sheep for sheep.


If a herdsman, to whom cattle or sheep have been entrusted for watching over, and who has received his wages as agreed upon, and is satisfied, diminish the number of the cattle or sheep, or make the increase by birth less, he shall make good the increase or profit which was lost in the terms of settlement.


If a herdsman, to whose care cattle or sheep have been entrusted, be guilty of fraud and make false returns of the natural increase, or sell them for money, then shall he be convicted and pay the owner ten times the loss.


If the animal be killed in the stable by God ( an accident), or if a lion kill it, the herdsman shall declare his innocence before God, and the owner bears the accident in the stable.


If the herdsman overlook something, and an accident happen in the stable, then the herdsman is at fault for the accident which he has caused in the stable, and he must compensate the owner for the cattle or sheep.


If any one hire an ox for threshing, the amount of the hire is twenty ka of corn.


If he hire an ass for threshing, the hire is twenty ka of corn.


If he hire a young animal for threshing, the hire is ten ka of corn.


If any one hire oxen, cart and driver, he shall pay one hundred and eighty ka of corn per day.


If any one hire a cart alone, he shall pay forty ka of corn per day.


If any one hire a day laborer, he shall pay him from the New Year until the fifth month (April to August, when days are long and the work hard) six gerahs in money per day; from the sixth month to the end of the year he shall give him five gerahs per day.


If any one hire a skilled artizan, he shall pay as wages of the . . . five gerahs, as wages of the potter five gerahs, of a tailor five gerahs, of . . . gerahs, . . . of a ropemaker four gerahs, of . . . gerahs, of a mason . . . gerahs per day.


If any one hire a ferryboat, he shall pay three gerahs in money per day.


If he hire a freight-boat, he shall pay two and one-half gerahs per day.


If any one hire a ship of sixty gur, he shall pay one-sixth of a shekel in money as its hire per day.


If any one buy a male or female slave, and before a month has elapsed the benu-disease be developed, he shall return the slave to the seller, and receive the money which he had paid.


If any one by a male or female slave, and a third party claim it, the seller is liable for the claim.


If while in a foreign country a man buy a male or female slave belonging to another of his own country; if when he return home the owner of the male or female slave recognize it: if the male or female slave be a native of the country, he shall give them back without any money.


If they are from another country, the buyer shall declare the amount of money paid therefor to the merchant, and keep the male or female slave.


If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear.

Ten Conservative Principles
The Russell Kirk Center | Russell Kirk

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims. In various editions of my book The Conservative Mind I have listed certain canons of conservative thought—the list differing somewhat from edition to edition; in my anthology The Portable Conservative Reader I offer variations upon this theme. Now I present to you a summary of conservative assumptions differing somewhat from my canons in those two books of mine. In fine, the diversity of ways in which conservative views may find expression is itself proof that conservatism is no fixed ideology. What particular principles conservatives emphasize during any given time will vary with the circumstances and necessities of that era. The following ten articles of belief reflect the emphases of conservatives in America nowadays.

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

Such, then, are ten principles that have loomed large during the two centuries of modern conservative thought. Other principles of equal importance might have been discussed here: the conservative understanding of justice, for one, or the conservative view of education. But such subjects, time running on, I must leave to your private investigation.

The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.

 Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. A righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land.

Hammurabi, the protecting king am I.

I have not withdrawn myself from the men, whom Bel gave to me, the rule over whom Marduk gave to me, I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place. I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon them. With the mighty weapons which Zamama and Ishtar entrusted to me, with the keen vision with which Ea endowed me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I have uprooted the enemy above and below (in north and south), subdued the earth, brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a disturber was not permitted.

The great gods have called me, I am the salvation-bearing shepherd, whose staff is straight, the good shadow that is spread over my city; on my breast I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad; in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations stand firm as heaven and earth, in order to declare justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness.

The king who rules among the kings of the cities am I. My words are well considered; there is no wisdom like mine. By the command of Shamash, the great judge of heaven and earth, let righteousness go forth in the land: by the order of Marduk, my lord, let no destruction befall my monument. In E-Sagil, which I love, let my name be ever repeated; let the oppressed, who have a case at law, come and stand before this my image as king of righteousness; let him read the inscription, and understand my precious words: the inscription will explain his case to him; he will find out what is just, and his heart will be glad, so that he will say:

"Hammurabi is a ruler, who is as a father to his subjects, who holds the words of Marduk in reverence, who has achieved conquest for Marduk over the north and south, who rejoices the heart of Marduk, his lord, who has bestowed benefits for ever and ever on his subjects, and has established order in the land."

When he reads the record, let him pray with full heart to Marduk, my lord, and Zarpanit, my lady; and then shall the protecting deities and the gods, who frequent E-Sagil, graciously grant the desires daily presented before Marduk, my lord, and Zarpanit, my lady.

In future time, through all coming generations, let the king, who may be in the land, observe the words of righteousness which I have written on my monument; let him not alter the law of the land which I have given, the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let him not mar. If such a ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in order, he shall observe the words which I have written in this inscription; the rule, statute, and law of the land which I have given; the decisions which I have made will this inscription show him; let him rule his subjects accordingly, speak justice to them, give right decisions, root out the evil-doers and criminals from this land, and grant prosperity to his subjects.

Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred the law am I. My words are well considered; my deeds are not equaled; to bring low those that were high; to humble the proud, to expel insolence. If a succeeding ruler considers my words, which I have written in this my inscription, if he do not annul my law, nor corrupt my words, nor change my monument, then may Shamash lengthen that king's reign, as he has that of me, the king of righteousness, that he may reign in righteousness over his subjects.

If this ruler does not esteem my words, which I have written in my inscription, if he despises my curses, and fears not the curse of God, if he destroys the law which I have given, corrupts my words, changes my monument, effaces my name, writes his name there, or on account of the curses commissions another to do so, that man, whether king or ruler, patesi, 11 or commoner, no matter what he be, may the great God (Anu), the Father of the gods, 1 who has ordered my rule, withdraw from him the glory of royalty, break his scepter, curse his destiny.

May Bel, the lord, who fixes destiny, whose command can not be altered, who has made my kingdom great, order a rebellion which his hand can not control; may he let the wind of the overthrow of his habitation blow, may he ordain the years of his rule in groaning, years of scarcity, years of famine, darkness without light, death with seeing eyes be fated to him; may he (Bel) order with his potent mouth the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his subjects, the cutting off of his rule, the removal of his name and memory from the land.

May Belit, the great Mother, whose command is potent in E-Kur, the Mistress, who harkens graciously to my petitions, in the seat of judgment and decision, turn his affairs evil before Bel, and put the devastation of his land, the destruction of his subjects, the pouring out of his life like water into the mouth of King Bel.

May Ea, the great ruler, whose fated decrees come to pass, the thinker of the gods, the omniscient, who makes long the days of my life, withdraw understanding and wisdom from him, lead him to forgetfulness, shut up his rivers at their sources, and not allow corn or sustenance for man to grow in his land.

May Shamash, the great Judge of heaven and earth, who supports all means of livelihood, Lord of life-courage, shatter his dominion, annul his law, destroy his way, make vain the march of his troops, send him in his visions forecasts of the uprooting of the foundations of his throne and of the destruction of his land. May the condemnation of Shamash overtake him; may he be deprived of water above among the living, and his spirit below in the earth.

May Sin, the Lord of Heaven, the divine father, whose crescent gives light among the gods, take away the crown and regal throne from him; may he put upon him heavy guilt, great decay, that nothing may be lower than he. May he destine him as fated, days, months and years of dominion filled with sighing and tears, increase of the burden of dominion, a life that is like unto death.

May Adad, the lord of fruitfulness, ruler of heaven and earth, my helper, withhold from him rain from heaven, and the flood of water from the springs, destroying his land by famine and want; may he rage mightily over his city, and make his land into flood-hills (heaps of ruined cities).

May Zamama, the great warrior, the first-born son of E-Kur, who goes at my right hand, shatter his weapons on the field of battle, turn day into night for him, and let his foe triumph over him.

May Ishtar, the goddess of fighting and war, who unfetters my weapons, my gracious protecting spirit, who loves my dominion, curse his kingdom in her angry heart; in her great wrath, change his grace into evil, and shatter his weapons on the place of fighting and war. May she create disorder and sedition for him, strike down his warriors, that the earth may drink their blood, and throw down the piles of corpses of his warriors on the field; may she not grant him a life of mercy, deliver him into the hands of his enemies, and imprison him in the land of his enemies.

May Nergal, the might among the gods, whose contest is irresistible, who grants me victory, in his great might burn up his subjects like a slender reedstalk, cut off his limbs with his mighty weapons, and shatter him like an earthen image.

May Nin-tu, the sublime mistress of the lands, the fruitful mother, deny him a son, vouchsafe him no name, give him no successor among men.

May Nin-karak, the daughter of Anu, who adjudges grace to me, cause to come upon his members in E-kur high fever, severe wounds, that can not be healed, whose nature the physician does not understand, which he can not treat with dressing, which, like the bite of death, can not be removed, until they have sapped away his life.

May he lament the loss of his life-power, and may the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunaki, altogether inflict a curse and evil upon the confines of the temple, the walls of this E-barra (the Sun temple of Sippara), upon his dominion, his land, his warriors, his subjects, and his troops. May Bel curse him with the potent curses of his mouth that can not be altered, and may they come upon him forthwith.

Translated by L.W. King (1910)
Edited by Richard Hooker


[GREAT SOBERING Refs to Hitler's Germany]

Posted on 11/01/2004 11:28:54 AM EST by Quix

Address given at Midwestern Seminary, Kansas City. September 6, 2000 The Sin of Silence A Defining Moment

It is a joy to be with you here today in a place where God has done great things, in a place where, once again, you stand for the truth of God’s Word, for the verbal inspiration of Scripture, for the inerrancy of that which God has written from the first chapter of the book of Genesis to the 22nd chapter of the book of Revelation, and I applaud you for that stand, and I stand with you in that faith.

And on the basis of that word, today we confront that which is happening in our culture. Now, I’m a Lutheran Christian, and that means that my historical and theological roots go back to Germany. And I find a context for what is happening in America today in that which took place in that great homeland of the Reformation in the 1930’s and the 1940’s.

Let me begin with a story about an incident that took place a few years ago as a prominent evangelical pastor was invited to a Christian university on the east coast to address the student body. Upon his arrival on the campus, he was greeted by the president of that institution, a distinguished looking older gentleman with upswept white hair who spoke with a decided German accent. As they walked to the chapel that day, the president requested permission to say a few words to the students before the service itself began, and of course, you don’t say no to the president of his own campus, so that permission was granted.

After the student body had gathered, the old gentleman walked to the rostrum with a ramrod straightness that only a German has, and he looked out over the students assembled there, the picture of dignity and composure. Gazing intently into the eyes of the young people in front of him, he began. “For you, “ he said, “today is a day like any other day, but it is an extremely important and painful day for me.” Silence fell over the room. The students noticed that as the old gentleman spoke, tears streamed down his face. This uncharacteristic display of emotion stunned the student body and riveted their attention. “Today is November the 9th,” he continued, “the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the ‘night of the broken glass.’ On this day in 1938, Nazi thugs moved through the cities of Germany, smashing the windows of Jewish homes and shops, burning the synagogues. Innocent people--men, women and children--were beaten and killed simply because they were Jews.

I was there as a young man,” he sobbed, “and I can still hear the sound of the shattering glass. There were many of us who were Christians then, and we did nothing. We looked the other way, and we did nothing. That was the beginning of the Holocaust, because the “Jew-haters” knew then that no one would stop them. No one would stand in their way.”

The old man went on to quote the words now inscribed in the Auschwitz memorial in Poland, the place where so many died. “Never again!” he pleaded. “Christian young people we must never let it happen again!”

My friends, it is happening again.

It is happening again today in our beautiful America, so richly and abundantly blessed by a gracious God. •

It is happening today as the innocents are slaughtered in a 27-year holocaust that has seen nearly 40 million little boys and girls brutally done to death. •

It is happening again, as families are fractured and marriages are broken while self-obsessed people pursue the immediate gratification of their every desire. •

It is happening again as militant homosexuals pursue absolute approval, complete acceptance and preferential legal treatment for their perversion. •

It is happening again as our young people lose their way and often their lives in a maze of alcohol and drugs and the corridors and classrooms of our land are littered with the bodies of murdered teenagers. •

It is happening again as the nation’s leaders wallow in decadence and deceit while the people look on in apathetic indifference.

It is happening again.

For while the killing goes on, and the nation is led down the path of destruction, the Church and her pastors stand silent and afraid. This country that we love, our America, is fighting for her life--not against the military power of a foreign enemy, but against the principalities and powers of this dark age. You and I, as sons and daughters of the Lord Jesus Christ, but even more so, those of you here today who are pastors of the church of Jesus Christ, are being called upon to take a stand in this moment of crisis, and let there be no one among us who doubts the urgency of this hour.

To compare what is happening in America today to Nazi Germany is no mere flight of rhetorical exaggeration. This nation is heedlessly stumbling toward third millennium darkness. Look around you and read the signs of the times. Look beyond the walls of our beautiful sanctuaries and the comfort of our padded pews to see the chaos, the corruption and the confusion, that reigns throughout our culture. We live in a society where passions are riderless horses, uncontrolled and uncontrollable, in which there is a desolation of decency, in which love has become a jungle emotion, lust exalted to lordship, sin elevated to sovereignty, Satan adored as a saint, and man magnified above his Maker.

Americans have come to dwell in an Alice in Wonderland world of fantasy, of self-delusion. Everything has been turned upside down and inside out in our America. Right is wrong, and wrong is right. Good is bad and bad is good. Normal is abnormal, and abnormal is normal, true is false and false is true. We are fast degenerating into a decadent culture obsessed with selfishness and sin, death and destruction.

In the face of this relentless onslaught of evil, the church of Jesus Christ has grown timid and afraid. We have abandoned the truth of God’s word, compromised the stern demands of His law, tailored our message to meet the felt needs of sinful men (as if sinful men ever knew what they actually needed) and prostituted ourselves and the Gospel that we profess to proclaim, for worldly popularity and success. We as Christian pastors seem to have forgotten that God did not call us to be popular or successful. God called us to be faithful.

Faithful preaching never comes in the form of safely vague pious platitudes. Faithful preaching must identify and denounce the false gods of this world that call upon our people to bow down before them every day.

God did not call us to be successful CEO’s protecting institutional peace and tranquillity, bringing in the bodies and the bucks by avoiding controversy and telling everybody what they wanted to hear.

God called us to proclaim His word, to be vigilant watchmen standing high upon the walls of Zion, sounding forth the clear, clarion call of the trumpet, calling out God’s people for war against the hosts of evil advancing all around us.

We as the Christians of America, we as the pastors of America, have failed in this responsibility before God. And our country is paying a dire price for that failure. Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, we are responsible.

The great reformer Martin Luther once declared that “the preacher who does not rebuke the sins of the rulers through God’s word spoken publicly, boldly, and honestly, strengthens the sins of the tyrants, and becomes a partaker in them and bears responsibility for them.”

Now note carefully Luther’s words. They ought to sear the conscience of every pastor in America today. The preacher who does not speak out becomes a participant in the wickedness of the tyrants and bears responsibility for it. We cannot shift that responsibility to anyone else today. We cannot blame the liberal media or the corrupt politicians or the apathetic public for that which has overtaken America. This is our fault, for we are the ones whom God placed here at this moment in our nation’s history to be the stinging salt and the shining light.

We are responsible for what has happened to America. In the year of our Lord 2000, there is no Pontius Pilate’s basin that can cleanse the hands of American pastors from the guilty stain of innocent blood.

When Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, he scornfully dismissed the Church and her pastors as an irrelevant force which posed no threat to the Nazi agenda for that great nation.

“I promise you," he boasted to his inner circle, “that if I wish to, I could destroy the Church in just a few years. It is hollow, it is rotten and false through and through. One push, and the whole structure would collapse. We should trap the preachers," he said, “ by their notorious greed and self-indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years’ reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantage. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves; they will betray their God for us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes.”

The dictator’s words proved to be tragically accurate. The great majority of Christians in Germany looked the other way and minded their own business. They kept their religion and their politics strictly separate from one another and refused to vote on the basis of single issues which would have set them apart from the rest of the electorate. They blended in and they went along and they followed the path of least resistance. They did that which was expedient and practical and safe, while their country was dragged down into a swirling maelstrom of barbarism and death. Only a few lonely voices were raised in protest.

In 1940 Nazi Germany was near her zenith, the nation’s power, prestige, prosperity unparalleled in history, her armies invincible on every front. The Jews had been systematically excluded from the life of the nation, deprived of the protection of the law and citizenship, gradually disappearing into a spreading network of concentration camps.

In that year 1940, at the height of Hitler’s power and popularity, a courageous young pastor named Dietrich Bonhoeffer denounced the church’s failure to speak out against the evil. In 1940 that lonely voice of truth proclaimed, “We the Church must confess that we have not proclaimed often or clearly enough the message of the one God, who has revealed Himself for all time in Christ Jesus and Who will tolerate no other gods beside Himself. She must confess her timidity, her cowardice, her evasiveness and her dangerous concessions.

She was silent when she should have cried out, because the blood of the innocent was crying aloud to heaven. The Church must confess that she has witnessed the lawless application of brutal force, the physical and spiritual suffering of countless innocent people, oppression, hatred, and murder, and that she has not raised her voice on behalf of the victims and has not found ways to hasten to their aid. The Church is guilty of the deaths of the weakest and most defenseless brothers of Jesus Christ. The Church must confess that she has desired security and peace, quiet, possessions and honor, to which she has no right. She has not borne witness to the truth of God. And by her silence, she has rendered herself guilty because of her unwillingness to suffer for what she knows to be right.”

Bonhoeffer’s warning went unheeded. He was dismissed by most of his colleagues as a single-issue fanatic. In less than 5 years, he was dead, hung naked from a piano-wire noose in Flossenberg concentration camp. Germany lay in ruins, her great cities bombed out of existence, cathedrals that had stood for a thousand years reduced to piles of broken brick and rubble.

In the face of monstrous evil, he who keeps silent fails in his responsibility before God and shares in the guilt. The moral meltdown that has overtaken America has been met with a deafening silence from the pulpits of America and the people-pleasing preachers who presume to stand in them. This desolation of decency could not have occurred if the pulpits of this land were once again aflame with righteousness, to use Alexis de Tocqueville's famous words. By our apathy, by our acquiescence and by our ignorance, the church of Jesus Christ has consigned itself to irrelevance and impotence in the ongoing struggle for the soul of America.

Our political leaders deal in trivialities and superficial nonsense, practicing the feel-good politics of deliberate ambiguity, while the destruction of our families, the perversion of our most basic moral principles, and the murder of innocent unborn children goes on and on and on.

Those candidates in the Presidential primaries who denounced the evils of abortion and stood unequivocally for moral values against the corruption of our times never rose out of single digits in the polls and therefore they were never considered serious contenders in this election cycle, and the moral issues for which they stood were pushed aside in favor of more practical considerations. We have come to this sorry state because Christian voters were more concerned about electability than about integrity.

The result, to use the words of former president Gerald Ford, is “we have an election in which candidates without ideas hire consultants without convictions to carry out campaigns without content.

Throughout the mind-boggling series of scandals that has gushed out of Washington like filth from a sewer in recent years, the endless refrain of the beltway establishment and the media elite has been, “We’ve got to get on with the nation’s business.” Well, folks, there was a time not too long ago when righteousness and decency and justice were the nation’s business. And unless that time comes again soon, this nation will not endure.

John Adams once warned that the problem with democracy is that you get the leaders you deserve. This sad spectacle ought to remind us that a people who cannot control themselves cannot govern themselves. It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s the morality, stupid.

The issue before us as Christians and as Christian pastors is faithfulness to the word of God and submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. To speak to the great moral issues of our day is an integral and essential part of that God-given responsibility. To fail to do so is nothing less than a denial of the Lordship of Jesus.

Pastor Martin Niemöller was yet another of that lonely band of Christian heroes that stood against the tide of evil in Nazi Germany. He was arrested by the Gestapo for faithfully preaching the word of God. Now Niemöller was what we would today call a celebrity; he was a national hero. He had been a U-boat commander highly decorated in the First World War, and only then after the war did he enter the ministry. His congregation in the Berlin suburb of Dahlem was one of the wealthiest and most influential evangelical churches in the land, its membership made up of high government officials, generals, and so on. And the arrest of this pastor from that church was highly controversial. The judge before whom he was arraigned on charges of sedition seemed genuinely puzzled why a patriot like Martin Niemöller would criticize Adolf Hitler, the man whom the German people hailed as their Fuhrer, an absolute leader, to whom unquestioned obedience was owed. The magistrate pleaded with the minister to end his attacks upon the Nazi regime and upon the Fuhrer. He promised Niemöller immediate release and the opportunity to return to his pulpit "today," if only he would agree to do so. Niemöller’s reply was steadfast: “I cannot and I will not be silent, because God is my Fuhrer.”

Our allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ must take precedence over any other loyalty in every part of our lives. If the Lord Jesus is truly our Lord, then we must serve Him. If the Lord Jesus is truly our Lord, then He cannot be safely compartmentalized to one place, one time, one day of the week, with one group of people, while we live like the heathen the rest of the time. If the Lord Jesus Christ is truly our Lord, He cannot be left outside the ballot box like an unneeded umbrella when we go in to vote. We must serve Him in all that we do. We must participate in this democracy that He has given us, not as “rock-ribbed Republicans” or “yellow-dog Democrats,” not as liberals or conservatives, not as men or women, not as labor or management, not as senior citizens who want to protect Social Security or as wage-earners who want their taxes lower, not as whites or blacks or Asians or Hispanics, but as sons and daughters of the Lord Jesus Christ. We must participate in this democracy as Christians, for only then will America turn from the path of destruction.

But as we participate, we must be careful to maintain our theological and moral integrity. God has not called us to be social agitators or reformers. He has called us to be faithful spokesmen for His word. Politics is the art of the possible. Christianity is the art of the impossible. The politician always has his eye on the next election. The Christian pastor must always have his eye on eternity. There is only one Savior, and His name will not be appearing on any election ballot in this particular cycle or any other. We dare never labor under the illusion that the Kingdom of God is about to arrive aboard Air Force One. Nor may we ever allow the church of Jesus Christ to be reduced to the status of a sanctimonious shill for a political candidate, party or philosopher.

The Roman statesman/historian Pliny the Younger once observed, “The common people find all religions to be true. The philosophers find all religions to be false. The politicians find all religions to be useful.”

When we as Christian pastors participate in this democracy, our participation must be prophetic, not political. We must summon this nation and its leaders to repentance as we relentlessly proclaim the truth of God. What America needs, essentially, is not merely a change of administration. What America needs is a spiritual re-birth…. Where God’s will does speak, on the fundamental issues of life, morality and family, there God’s pastors must address the issues, on the basis of Scripture, without equivocation and without hesitation.

God may not have endorsed a particular method for Tax Reform, but of this one thing we can be absolutely certain: The Lord God Almighty hates the murder of innocent unborn children. God is not the mascot of the Republican or the Democratic parties. But let there be no doubt whatsoever about this: The Creator instituted holy marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. Any other combination, no matter how modern, innovative or politically correct is a perversion of the divine intent. That prophetic witness will not be welcomed by those politicians on either side of the aisle who seek only to preserve their own position and power. We who profess to speak for God must proclaim the truth in a political world of diplomatic double-talk and deliberate evasion. Once again, that won’t make us popular, but God did not call us to be popular. He called us to be faithful, and we as His spokesmen must be willing to pay the high personal price that that faithfulness requires.

The morning after Pastor Martin Niemöller was arrested, the Lutheran chaplain was making his rounds in the city jail and as he was making his rounds, he was astounded and dismayed to find his fellow clergyman sitting there under arrest. “My brother!" he exclaimed. “What did you do? Why are you here?” Niemöller, never at a loss for words, immediately reacted. “My brother, given what’s happened in our country, why aren't you here?”

Those days have not yet come in America, but they are coming soon. We have already seen the ominous beginnings of attempts to muzzle Christian witness on radio and television, to label Christian objections to abortion and homosexuality as “hate speech.”

In Europe and Canada significant steps have already been taken in that direction, and if present trends continue, America will not be far behind. Gentlemen and ladies, it is only a short step from prohibiting that which is politically incorrect as “hate speech" in the media to prohibiting it in the pulpits of every church in America. My brothers, given what is happening in our country, why aren't you here?

The saddest and most tragic feature of the Christian experience in Germany was the bitter expression of regret that came from so many afterwards, who realized their failure only too late.

One such man was a university professor and diplomat named Albrecht Haushoeffer. He was a quiet, gentle man who wrote poetry in his spare time. As gradually he came to recognize the enormity of the evil of Nazism, he was drawn into the resistance and arrested in 1944 after the failure of the Stauffenberg plot to assassinate Hitler.

In the final days of the war, as the Russian tanks moved through the outskirts of the city of Berlin and the dictator hid in the Fuhrer bunker like a rat trapped in his hole, the SS guards at the city prison were given a list of those who were not to be allowed to survive the downfall of Nazism because they knew too much.

Albrecht Hausshoeffer’s name was included on that death list.

A group of 7 or 8 prisoners was taken out of their cells that morning. They were told they were about to be released. Each of the prisoners was assigned an SS guard. They were led out of the jail into the nearby Tiergarten, the great park in the center of the city of Berlin. And as they came to the center of that park, out of sight from anyone else, each guard stepped up behind the prisoner assigned to him and shot him in the back of the head. The bodies were abandoned there in the snow and the mud of the ruined city.

Some time later Albrecht’s brother heard rumors of what had happened, and he hurried into the park to search for his brother’s body. When he found it, there clutched in his hand was a bloodstained sheaf of paper. Written on that paper was a poem that Hausshoeffer had composed just a few hours before his execution. It was entitled "Schuldig Bin Ich" ( “I Am Guilty.”)

“The burden of my guilt,” the condemned man wrote, “before the law weighs light on my shoulders. To plot and conspire was my duty to the people. I would have been a criminal had I not. I am guilty, although not in the way that you think. I should have done my duty sooner. I was wrong. I should have called the evil more clearly by its name. I hesitated to condemn for far too long. I now accuse myself within my own heart. I have betrayed my conscience for far too long. I have deceived myself and my fellow man. I knew the course of evil from its start. My warning was not loud enough or clear enough. Today as I die, I know what I am guilty of.”

We, too, have known the evil from its start. In this great nation, where for 27 long years the innocent unborn have been slaughtered, we have grown accustomed to the killing and have gone on with our business, with our lives and our ministries while the little ones have perished every day, 4,500 a day. This is what we have come to in America. The Supreme Court of our land sanctions the horror of partial birth abortion, this most barbaric and grotesque killing of a child in the midst of its birth. And yet, even in the face of this abomination, the churches of America, the pastors of America, are silent. Where is the cry of outrage? Where is the indignation of the people of God? We, too, have known the evil from its start. Dumpsters full of ravaged infant bodies stand in mute testimony to our failure and to our guilt.

The Christians of Germany realized only too late how much had been at stake and how much they had lost. But we may still have a chance. It’s not too late yet for our America. The righteous judgment of God has not yet come upon us. The New Testament speaks of unique moments of divine destiny, when God confronts His people with a challenge and offers them an opportunity. The Greek word for such a moment of divine destiny is “kairos.” I believe that the Church in America has come to such a time, a biblical kairos, a moment of divine destiny. If we fail to meet this challenge and rise to this opportunity, our nation will not survive. It is as simple and as stark as that.

This is our moment, my friends. Our time of testing. I pray that we may be equal to the challenge of these days, that we may seize this precious opportunity from God, that we may be within this dying culture the stinging salt that stops the decay of death, the shining light that dispels the darkness of doubt and despair, that America may once again be the gleaming city set high upon a hill that shines as a beacon light of life and hope for this nation and to every nation. I pray that we may serve the Lord Jesus Christ with courage and with honor, for the glory of His name, that we may snatch our country back from the brink of destruction and preserve this legacy of faith and freedom for those who will come after us. This is our moment of divine destiny, our kairos.

In the winter of 1943, a group of university students in Munich, calling themselves The White Rose, began a desperate effort to awaken the young people of that nation to the malignant evil that had engulfed their country. Led by a 25-year old student named Hans Scholl, they distributed leaflets across the campus in a doomed effort to provoke resistance to the Hitler regime.

Six leaflets were written. Number Four in the series included this desperate plea, a plea which could have been written today, a plea which could have been addressed to us. Scholl wrote, “Everywhere, at all times of greatest trial, men have appeared, prophets and saints, who cherished their freedom, who preached the one God and who with His help brought the people to a reversal of their downward course. I ask you now, as a Christian, wrestling for the preservation of your greatest treasure: Why do you hesitate? Why are you inclined toward intrigue, calculation and procrastination? Are you hoping that someone else will raise his arm in your defense? God has given you the strength! God has given you the will to fight! We must attack the evil now, where it is strongest!”

Their valiant effort was crushed after only a few weeks. Scholl and his young comrades were beheaded by the Gestapo. They died for their faith, but their words reverberate down across the years to us in America today, to a nation that has been blessed more richly than any other nation in the history of mankind. Their words come to us:

“Why do you hesitate? God has given you the strength! God has given you the will to fight! We must attack the evil now where it is strongest.”

Christians of America, this is our kairos, our moment of divine destiny. God has given us this time. Let us use it to His glory. To that end, may our gracious God bless you, and may God bless our America. Thank you.

The Rise and Fall of the New American Left

Today's typical responses from the lefty print media have convinced me of the delusion of the far left in America. "We didn't get our message out", or "the great unwashed are stupid, ignorant peasants." Sure, that's the way to win next time - just crank up the BS machine and try even harder to convince the "little folks" that Communism can work if its "done right". Jane Smiley's article in today's Slate is typical. I don't how how old Jane is, but the way she refuses to address reality means she probably was around in the late 1960's - 1968 in particular - the year the left began to think they really were the vanguard of future America.

The bringing down of Richard Nixon (of which event little Hillary the Clown Princess and perhaps the heir apparent to Kerry's lost crusade was part) gave these fools (including Dan Rather who, as a legend in his own mind, convinced himself that he could become King of the Media and thus, control the American political dialog forever) the false idea that NeoMarxism as a way of life for allAmericans was just over the horizon.

They peaked in 1994 and the tide began to turn in that year. The BS factor had run its course: 1994 - exactly 30 years after Lyndon Baines Johnson had come into the presidency on the promise that "American boys should not do the job Asian boys should do." 1964 was the start of the War On Poverty with its affirmative action centerpiece garnered through the Civil Rights Act of the same year. Women's lib (code for having sex with no consequences attached - an outcome of the development of the oral contraceptive), the civil rights movement built on the greatness of Martin Luther King (who listens to his heir apparent - the unlikeable, hypocritical, fornication king, Jesse Jackson, today?), the Free Speech Movement spawned at the University of California at Berkeley, (whatever happened to Mario Savio and his band of foul-mouthed failed academics?)and the advent of the Psychedelic Age (Tim Leary has gone to his reward as has his heir apparent, Terrence McKenna) - it all looked like the dawning of a New Age.

Thirty years later it all looks so stupid in retrospect. The War on Poverty has been a colossal failure. Although many fine black people have taken advantage of the gift of affirmative action to better their lives and the lives of their families, most have not. Clinging to the mantle of 'victim-hood', many refuse to address their own unwillingness to actually do the foot work necessary for success. The promise of unrestricted, consequence-less sex has dissolved into an epidemic of herpes and AIDS. The Psychedelic Culture has not spawned a New Age of Enlightenment - it merely sputters along as the aficionados have moved back to the more comfortable (and more controllable) amphetamines, opiates, and booze.

The high water mark for the RAT bastards was 1994 - the end of the honeymoon of the first two years of the Clinton presidency. The cold war had been won (not by a RAT, but by a Goldwater Republican - Ronald Reagan), free sex was no longer free, the drugged out hippy generation was now approaching (or in )middle age, nobody gave a hoot for the National Organization for Women, (now hi-jacked by radical feminist lesbians with a single agenda item - on demand abortion), the Civil Rights Movement had more or less petered out, and people were getting a little tired of having much of their hard earned money taxed at confiscatory rates.

Clinton left office in shame, Al Gore went completely insane and lost his 2000 bid for the presidency, the RAT party moved further to the left, so much so that a life-long democrat, Zell Miller, could no longer recognize the party of his youth, and certifiable psychotics like Kucinich and Dean (and Teresa)were pushed to forefront.

Kerry was hosed before he got started.

And now, in the aftermath of perhaps the greatest failure of the American left, the morons want to fall back behind their own phony victimhood nonsenes once again. These people (thankfully) are never going to get it

The Death of the Democratic Party
October 29, 2004
by Barbara J. Stock

The Democrat Party of my father is dead. It started to die with Lyndon Johnson and the “Great Society.” Jimmy Carter crippled it, but it could have been saved. Bill Clinton put a stake in its heart and John Kerry has let his party bleed to death. There is no hope now. The Democrat Party is almost devoid of morals, honesty or integrity. Its members have thrown it all away in their rush for power and in their headlong plunge towards socialism. The liberals don’t even try to keep it secret anymore. They don’t care who knows. They just keep lying.

To win the election in 1991, the Clinton camp put out their “October Surprise.” Lawrence Walsh handed down a last-minute indictment of Casper Weinberger and that tipped the scale in Clinton’s favor. Interestingly, if one checks, he will find that the Senate Committee Report on Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy was chaired by none other than Senator John F. Kerry. Perhaps Bill Clinton climbed out of his sick bed to repay a favor.

In 2000, a Democrat operative leaked the news of a George Bush drunk driving arrest that was 25 years old. It nearly cost Bush the election as a 5% lead disappeared overnight.

This year the Democrat lie-machine has been moving at warp speed. The truly horrifying thing is that they have openly been joined by their ultra-liberal friends in the media. The New York Times has totally sold its soul to the Kerry campaign. CBS has sacrificed 50 years of credibility to assist John Kerry. Can anyone now believe anything either of these once irrefutable sources of news puts forth? Not only has the Democrat Party committed suicide, it has taken many great American icons with it. It was all done in the name of power and the need to regain it.

The Democrat Party never recovered from loosing the Congress in 1994. Democrats have been bitter and angry ever since. When Al Gore lost in 2000, the rage turned into blind hatred. Democrats perpetuate the lie that the Supreme Court “gave” the election to Bush. They did not. Democrats continue to insist that a million African Americans were “disenfranchised” in the last election in Florida. They were not. Now they circulate a disgusting pamphlet that tells minorities if they try to vote, evil Republicans will hit them with fire hoses “like they did in the 1960’s.” Pay no mind to the fact that most of those using fire hoses were following the orders of southern Democratic governors.

For the 2000 election, Democrats put out ads that showed a man being dragged to death behind a truck while saying Bush was against severe penalties for “hate crimes.” This ad ran while the men responsible for that very crime were on death row. Is there a more severe penalty than death for such a crime? Are not most murders “hate crimes?” Then the liberals have the gall to accuse Bush of executing more people than any other governor--which was another false statement.

Can today’s Democrats say anything that is not a lie? Is it possible anymore? Do they care? If they can’t win an election honestly, then they will just lie and cheat.

Ohio's Republican Governor Bob Taft has reported that four counties have now been found to have more people registered than even live in the counties and are eligible to vote according to the last census. The old Democrat saying “vote early and often” is alive and well. Be sure to drag dead or senile grandma with you so you can vote for her as well.

Now we have this years “October Surprise.” The Democrats, in concert with the New York Times and CBS, are trying to convince Americans that Bush allowed 350 tons of high explosives fall into the hands of the enemy. The way the story was written, it sounded as though the explosives were stolen last week or yesterday. As it turned out, they probably were not stolen at all. Their plan was a good one, but they forgot about those pesky reporters who were embedded with the troops. The reporter embedded for NBC, Dana Lewis, now with FOX News, states that he saw no weapons with the IAEA’s seal on them as he walked the complex when the troops arrived on April 10, 2003. Mohamed El Baradei, head of the United Nations nuclear watch-dog group, had reported in February 2003 that some of the high explosives had already been moved. The IAEA also reported huge explosions at that site during the opening days of the war. One has to ask, since these weapons were illegal under the United Nations agreement with Saddam, why were they not removed and destroyed when they were found by the IAEA?

The last visit from the United Nations organization was in January of that year. Sometime between January and April, Saddam probably moved many of those explosives. A complete inspection of the site was done on May 27, 2003 and nothing with an IAEA seal was present. There were several deep craters. How does one get 40 semi-truck loads of high explosives out past roads teaming with American soldiers and the sky full of spy planes without being seen? Who would have organized such an operation? The Saddam government was in chaos and there was no insurgency at that early date.

Why then did the Mohamed El Baradei, chastised by Bush for not know about Libya’s weapons of mass destruction program and being weak in its dealings with Iran, leak this story to the media? Remember, El Baradei knew these explosives were missing in May 2003 when it was reported to him that our inspectors had found no such weapons at that complex. Why did he wait until one week before the American election to reveal this “news?” Could it be that the mighty and corrupt United Nations feels its world supremacy is threatened by President Bush? Is it possible that it would feel much more comfortable with John Kerry who has already pledged his allegiance to the United Nations and stated that dying under the U.N. flag is honorable, but dying under the American flag is not? John Kerry voted against the Gulf War because he felt the war should have been carried out by United Nations commanders, not American generals. Kerry wanted to do the unthinkable--put American troops under foreign command.

This election year has been like no other. Outside interference from Europe in the form of mass email messages pleading with Ohioans to vote for Kerry and British newspapers printing columns with statements like “Where is a Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?” Terrorists like Yassar Arafat endorse John Kerry. Forged documents and blatant lies abound. Democrats have sold their souls to the devil in an attempt to regain their power and the devil wants his due.

Hopefully, Americans will bury this rotting and decaying Democrat Party on November 2, 2004 without allowing them to totally corrupt our democratic system beyond repair. If we are lucky, Bush will win is such a decisive manner that Kerry’s army of 10,000 lawyers, poised to make the election a living hell, will be sent home. A new Democratic Party may rise from ashes and if it does, I hope that there will be at least a few honest people among them. But at this point, I’m not going to place any bets on it.

"I wouldn't call it fascism exactly, but a political system nominally controlled by an irresponsible, dumbed down electorate who are manipulated by dishonest, cynical, controlled mass media that dispense the propaganda of a corrupt political establishment can hardly be described as democracy either." --Edward Zehr

Socialism: The Left's Fundamental Problem

Due to the late night last night, I took the day off and I've been watching the election post-mortem as many of us may have. The Left have been wringing their hands, analyzing Kerry's campaign from birth to death, and asking the inevitable question: "Where did John Kerry go wrong?" The excuses run the usual gamut: "Karl Rove got the vote out", "It was crazy Bible-thumping Evangelicals", "The Massachusetts Supreme Court lost it for Kerry", and so on. While the gay marriage issue probably had a hand in turnout, they still appear to be terminally afflicted with the central denial that has kept them out of any real power for the last ten years (I don't count a lame-duck Clinton as having any real power). There is one overriding theme that they simply refuse to accept:


Full stop. This is so important and fundamental to the Conservative identity that it bears repeating, slowly and loudly.


I realize that no "reputable" Democrat hasn't actually mentioned the S-word. It doesn't matter. I assure our citizens on the Left that we've gotten the memo, that we understand that "Progressive" is the current code-word for Socialism. Truly, we get it. "Progressive" equals "Socialism". We *do not* want it.

I am speaking to the Left now. No matter how you repackage it, we will refuse to accept it. If the "Visionary" memo goes out and that becomes the new term for "Socialism", we will still vote down anyone who tries to push it upon us. Hillary tried this with her "Hillarycare" proposal in 1993, and we took the US Congress away from you. We did it because, and I'll say it again, WE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE UNDER SOCIALISM! We know what Socialism is; there are countless examples of countries that utilize it to varying degrees in different parts of the world, and we have consciously decided that we do not want to live under such a system. You can attempt to repackage it any way you want: no term, no turn of the phrase, no race-baiting language, nor any other greed-inducing or emotionally-charged diatribe will sway us. We know it for what it is, and we will refuse it every time.

I am sure that some among the Left will still be in denial even after I've said this. I know, we "just don't get it." We're uneducated, hyper-religious, Bible-thumping zealots. I assure you that we are not. We are educated, we are professionals, and we have real lives. Urban music or culture might not be our cup of tea, but ignorant yokels we are not. We are capable of studying a socioeconomic construct like Socialism and passing judgment upon it -- and we have decided that it is not for us. If you want Socialism so badly, I suggest moving to Canada. They have apparently decided differently, and you will almost certainly gain your wish. However, as long as we Conservatives draw breath, we shall not submit to such a system. In fact, your decades-long insistence on imposing it upon us has convinced most of us that you will not give this up anytime soon, and we therefore mustn't trust you with power. Don't expect any support from us in "flyover country" (or even those of us not in flyover country -- I am writing this a mere fifteen minutes from Philadelphia International Airport).

Make no mistake: Christianity does enter into this for some of us. One of the Ten Commandments says, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." Believe it or not, we are actually capable of comprehending the written word, and we understand what this simple statement means in practice. It is *morally wrong* to feel jealous of those who have more than us, even if we don't lift a finger to take from them. Socialism turns this upon its head: under such a system no one is allowed to have more than someone else, and the State has the authority to correct a material imbalance. So in that sense, while many of us base our judgment of Socialism purely on the basis that we don't want to live under it, for many of us it is also a moral decision. I understand that the Left doesn't believe in moral decisions, but make no mistake -- we do, and we won't give up our right to form our own morality without a fierce fight. Once again may I suggest Canada. It is lightly populated, and I am confident that legions of American Left could take it over easily.

Social Justice: Code for Communism | February 27, 2004 | Barry Loberfeld

The signature of modern leftist rhetoric is the deployment of terminology that simply cannot fail to command assent. As Orwell himself recognized, even slavery could be sold if labeled "freedom." In this vein, who could ever conscientiously oppose the pursuit of "social justice," -- i.e., a just society?

To understand "social justice," we must contrast it with the earlier view of justice against which it was conceived -- one that arose as a revolt against political absolutism. With a government (e.g., a monarchy) that is granted absolute power, it is impossible to speak of any injustice on its part. If it can do anything, it can't do anything "wrong." Justice as a political/legal term can begin only when limitations are placed upon the sovereign, i.e., when men define what is unjust for government to do. The historical realization traces from the Roman senate to Magna Carta to the U.S. Constitution to the 19th century. It was now a matter of "justice" that government not arrest citizens arbitrarily, sanction their bondage by others, persecute them for their religion or speech, seize their property, or prevent their travel.

This culmination of centuries of ideas and struggles became known as liberalism. And it was precisely in opposition to this liberalism -- not feudalism or theocracy or the ancien régime, much less 20th century fascism -- that Karl Marx formed and detailed the popular concept of "social justice," (which has become a kind of "new and improved" substitute for a storeful of other terms -- Marxism, socialism, collectivism -- that, in the wake of Communism's history and collapse, are now unsellable).

"The history of all existing society," he and Engels declared, "is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf ... oppressor and oppressed, stood in sharp opposition to each other." They were quite right to note the political castes and resulting clashes of the pre-liberal era. The expositors of liberalism (Spencer, Maine) saw their ethic, by establishing the political equality of all (e.g., the abolition of slavery, serfdom, and inequality of rights), as moving mankind from a "society of status" to a "society of contract." Alas, Marx the Prophet could not accept that the classless millenium had arrived before he did. Thus, he revealed to a benighted humanity that liberalism was in fact merely another stage of History's class struggle -- "capitalism" -- with its own combatants: the "proletariat" and the "bourgeoisie." The former were manual laborers, the latter professionals and business owners. Marx's "classes" were not political castes but occupations.

Today the terms have broadened to mean essentially income brackets. If Smith can make a nice living from his writing, he's a bourgeois; if Jones is reciting poetry for coins in a subway terminal, he's a proletarian. But the freedoms of speech and enterprise that they share equally are "nothing but lies and falsehoods so long as" their differences in affluence and influence persist (Luxemburg). The unbroken line from The Communist Manifesto to its contemporary adherents is that economic inequality is the monstrous injustice of the capitalist system, which must be replaced by an ideal of "social justice" -- a "classless" society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and "power."

Give Marx his due: He was absolutely correct in identifying the political freedom of liberalism -- the right of each man to do as he wishes with his own resources -- as the origin of income disparity under capitalism. If Smith is now earning a fortune while Jones is still stuck in that subway, it's not because of the "class" into which each was born, to say nothing of royal patronage. They are where they are because of how the common man spends his money. That's why some writers sell books in the millions, some sell them in the thousands, and still others can't even get published. It is the choices of the masses ("the market") that create the inequalities of fortune and fame -- and the only way to correct those "injustices" is to control those choices.

Every policy item on the leftist agenda is merely a deduction from this fundamental premise. Private property and the free market of exchange are the most obvious hindrances to the implementation of that agenda, but hardly the only. Also verboten is the choice to emigrate, which removes one and one's wealth from the pool of resources to be redirected by the demands of "social justice" and its enforcers. And crucial to the justification of a "classless" society is the undermining of any notion that individuals are responsible for their behavior and its consequences. To maintain the illusion that classes still exist under capitalism, it cannot be conceded that the "haves" are responsible for what they have or that the "have nots" are responsible for what they have not. Therefore, people are what they are because of where they were born into the social order -- as if this were early 17th century France.

Men of achievement are pointedly referred to as "the priviliged" -- as if they were given everything and earned nothing. Their seemimg accomplishments are, at best, really nothing more than the results of the sheer luck of a beneficial social environment (or even -- in the allowance of one egalitarian, John Rawls -- "natural endowment"). Consequently, the "haves" do not deserve what they have. The flip side of this is the insistence that the "have nots" are, in fact, "the underpriviliged," who have been denied their due by an unjust society. If some men wind up behind bars, they are (to borrow from Broadway) depraved only because they are "deprived." Environmental determinism, once an almost sacred doctrine of official Soviet academe, thrives as the "social constructionist" orthodoxy of today's anti-capitalist left. The theory of "behavioral scientists" and their boxed rats serviceably parallels the practice of a Central Planning Board and its closed society.

The imperative of economic equality also generates a striking opposition between "social justice" and its liberal rival. The equality of the latter, we've noted, is the equality of all individuals in the eyes of the law -- the protection of the political rights of each man, irrespective of "class" (or any assigned collective identity, hence the blindfold of Justice personified). However, this political equality, also noted, spawns the difference in "class" between Smith and Jones. All this echoes Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek's observation that if "we treat them equally [politically], the result must be inequality in their actual [i.e., economic] position." The irresistable conclusion is that "the only way to place them in an equal [economic] position would be to treat them differently [politically]" -- precisely the conclusion that the advocates of "social justice" themselves have always reached.

In the nations that had instituted this resolution throughout their legal systems, "different" political treatment came to subsume the extermination or imprisonment of millions because of their "class" origins. In our own American "mixed economy," which mixes differing systems of justice as much as economics, "social justice" finds expression in such policies and propositions as progressive taxation and income redistribution; affirmative action and even "reparations," its logical implication; and selective censorship in the name of "substantive equality," i.e., economic equality disingenuously reconfigured as a Fourteenth Amendment right and touted as the moral superior to "formal equality," the equality of political freedom actually guaranteed by the amendment. This last is the project of a growing number of leftist legal theorists that includes Cass Sunstein and Catherine MacKinnon, the latter opining that the "law of [substantive] equality and the law of freedom of expression [for all] are on a collision course in this country." Interestingly, Hayek had continued, "Equality before the law and material equality are, therefore, not only different, but in conflict with each other" -- a pronouncement that evidently draws no dissent.

Hayek emphasized another conflict between the two conceptions of justice, one we can begin examining simply by asking who the subject of liberal justice is. The answer: a person -- a flesh-and-blood person, who is held accountable for only those actions that constitute specifically defined crimes of violence (robbery, rape, murder) against other citizens. Conversely, who is the subject of "social justice" -- society? Indeed yes, but is society really a "who"? When we speak of "social psychology" (the standard example), no one believes that there is a "social psyche" whose thoughts can be analyzed. And yet the very notion of "social justice" presupposes a volitional Society whose actions can (and must) be held accountable. This jarring bit of Platonism traces all the way back to Marx himself, who, "despite all his anti-Idealistic and anti-Hegelian rhetoric, is really an Idealist and Hegelian ... asserting, at root, that [Society] precedes and determines the characteristics of those who are [its] members" (R.A. Childs, Jr.). Behold leftism's alternative to liberalism's "atomistic individualism": reifying collectivism, what Hayek called "anthropomorphism or personification."

Too obviously, it is not liberalism that atomizes an entity (a concrete), but "social justice" that reifies an aggregate (an abstraction). And exactly what injustice is Society responsible for? Of course: the economic inequality between Smith and Jones -- and Johnson and Brown and all others. But there is no personified Society who planned and perpetrated this alleged inequity, only a society of persons acting upon the many choices made by their individual minds. Eventually, though, everyone recognizes that this Ideal of Society doesn't exist in the real world -- leaving two options. One is to cease holding society accountable as a legal entity, a moral agent. The other is to conclude that the only practicable way to hold society accountable for "its" actions is to police the every action of every individual.

The apologists for applied "social justice" have always explained away its relationship to totalitarianism as nothing more than what we may call (after Orwell's Animal Farm) the "Napoleon scenario": the subversion of earnest revolutions by demented individuals (e.g., Stalin, Mao -- to name just two among too many). What can never be admitted is that authoritarian brutality is the not-merely-possible-but-inevitable realization of the nature of "social justice" itself.

What is "social justice"? The theory that implies and justifies the practice of socialism.

And what is "socialism"? Domination by the State.

What is "socialized" is state-controlled.

So what is "totalitarian" socialism other than total socialism, i.e., state control of everything?

And what is that but the absence of a free market in anything, be it goods or ideas?

Those who contend that a socialist government need not be totalitarian, that it can allow a free market -- independent choice, the very source of "inequality"! -- in some things (ideas) and not in others (goods -- as if, say, books were one or the other), are saying only that the socialist ethic shouldn't be applied consistently.

This is nothing less than a confession of moral cowardice. It is the explanation for why, from Moscow to Managua, all the rivalries within the different socialist revolutions have been won by, not the "democratic" or "libertarian" socialists, but the totalitarians, i.e., those who don't qualify their socialism with antonyms. "Totalitarian socialism" is not a variation but a redundancy, which is why half-capitalist hypocrites will always lose out to those who have the courage of their socialist convictions. (Likewise, someone whose idea of "social justice" is a moderate welfare state is someone who's willing to tolerate far more "social injustice" than he's willing to eliminate.)

What is "social justice"? The abolition of privacy. Its repudiation of property rights, far from being a fundamental, is merely one derivation of this basic principle. Socialism, declared Marx, advocates "the positive abolition of private property [in order to effect] the return of man himself as a social, i.e., really human, being." It is the private status of property -- meaning: the privacy, not the property -- that stands in opposition to the social (i.e., "socialized," and thus "really human") nature of man. Observe that the premise holds even when we substitute x for property. If private anything denies man's social nature, then so does private everything. And it is the negation of anything and everything private -- from work to worship to even family life -- that has been the social affirmation of the socialist state.

What is "social justice"? The opposite of capitalism. And what is "capitalism"? It is Marx's coinage (minted by his materialist dispensation) for the Western liberalism that diminished state power from absolutism to limited government; that, from John Locke to the American Founders, held that each individual has an inviolable right to his own life, liberty, and property, which government exists solely to secure. Now what would the reverse of this be but a resurrection of Oriental despotism, the reactionary increase of state power from limited government to absolutism, i.e., "totalitarianism," the absolute control of absolutely everything? And what is the opposite -- the violation -- of securing the life, liberty, and property of all men other than mass murder, mass tyranny, and mass plunder? And what is that but the point at which theory ends and history begins?

And yet even before that point -- before the 20th century, before publication of the Manifesto itself -- there were those who did indeed make the connection between what Marxism inherently meant on paper and what it would inevitably mean in practice. In 1844, Arnold Ruge presented the abstract: "a police and slave state." And in 1872, Michael Bakunin provided the specifics:

[T]he People's State of Marx ... will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically, as all governments do today. It will also administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State the production and division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, and finally the application of capital to production by the only banker -- the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads "overflowing with brains" in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones!

It is precisely this "new class" that reflects the defining contradiction of modern leftist reality: The goal of complete economic equality logically enjoins the means of complete state control, yet this means has never practically achieved that end. Yes, Smith and Jones, once "socialized," are equally poor and equally oppressed, but now above them looms an oligarchy of not-to-be-equalized equalizers. The inescapable rise of this "new class" -- privileged economically as well as politically, never quite ready to "wither away" -- forever destroys the possibility of a "classless" society. Here the lesson of socialism teaches what should have been learned from the lesson of pre-liberal despotism -- that state coercion is a means to no end but its own. Far from expanding equality from the political to the economic realm, the pursuit of "social justice" serves only to contract it within both. There will never be any kind of equality -- or real justice -- as long as a socialist elite stands behind the trigger while the rest of us kneel before the barrel.

Further Reading

The contemporary left remains possessed by the spirit of Marx, present even where he's not, and the best overview of his ideology remains Thomas Sowell's Marxism: Philosophy and Economics, which is complemented perfectly by the most accessible refutation of that ideology, David Conway's A Farewell to Marx. Hayek's majestic The Mirage of Social Justice is a challenging yet rewarding effort, while his The Road to Serfdom provides an unparalleled exposition of how freedom falls to tyranny. Moving from theory to practice, Communism: A History, Richard Pipes' slim survey, ably says all that is needed.


“We the People” made history on November 2nd 2004 in so many ways. We turned out in record numbers to decide the future of our nation. By doing so, we took control of our country at a time when many believed control had been lost to the politicians, the corporations, or the special interest groups. We proved who runs this country, and the lessons are clear…

Since FDR, there has been a slow constant march towards socialism in America.

American’s are the most socially conscious people on earth, but that doesn’t mean we believe in socialism as a form of governance. We know what socialism is, and we are aware of its record of failure around the globe. We have watched the DNC adopt a socialist doctrine, even watched as the socialist and communist party’s endorsed the DNC candidate in 2004, and on November 2nd, “we the people” said no!

The socialization of America depends on the movement first succeeding at a few other things. Neither socialism nor communism will be accepted in a nation of free moral people. No matter which God one believes in, belief in God’s dominion over man removes any possibility of man’s dominion over man. So for socialism to be accepted, America must first agree to become a secular nation. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

In order to become a secular nation, separation of church and state has to become law. We have all listened to Ivy League professor’s pontificate about the idea of separation of church and state in America, but we all know there is no such thing. We also know there is no real difference between people with no moral foundation at all, and people who can separate themselves from their moral convictions at will. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

A secular nation replaces moral and ethical values with the concept of an open society whereby all ideals, no matter how immoral, no matter how perverted, have equal merit and Rights. Idea’s like Gay Marriage, Pedophilia and Bestiality are given equal status with traditional family values. Some want to separate these ideas as though some are more immoral or more perverted than others. But in all cases, they represent unnatural sexual urges and none of them belong on an equal footing with traditional family values. On November 2nd, 11 states addressed these ideas and in all 11 cases, “we the people” overwhelmingly said no!

Abortion, the taking of innocent life for the purpose of sexual convenience has been accepted in this country for more than 40 years. No law was passed making it legal, no Constitutional Amendment exists making it a Right, and if it were put to a nation wide referendum, it would be outlawed from sea to shining sea. People who can do this, or who openly promote it, will pay a heavy price for their actions and so will all of us who sit quietly by, and allow it to continue. In a secular nation, murder is no problem, but on November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” proved that America is not yet a secular nation.

America is not only the nation that feeds itself; it’s the nation that has fed the world for more than 100 years. Most countries in the world are either third world dictatorships, or socialist forms of limited self-governance. Every nation envies the wealth and power of America, and many wish to bring America down to their level in every respect. All of our power is a result of and dependent upon our economic power. That economic power exists because of our economic freedom, and socialists threaten that freedom, and the power and security it provides.

More than $4 billion was spent in the 2004 election to fill a $400,000. a year position. An obscene amount of “illegal” money from God knows where or who, with God knows what kind of strings attached, was funneled into our honorable system by dishonorable people through 527 organizations attempting to supercede the will of the American people. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

Billionaire socialists like George Soros, secularists with anti-American agenda’s attempted to purchase the White House for their lap monkey John Kerry, and “we the people” said no!

Socialist media elite’s like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson, and Hollywood socialists like Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Sean Penn, George Clooney and Alec Baldwin combined their efforts of mass disinformation, converting what was left of a liberal news media into a pure socialist propaganda machine. The quality of information being delivered to the American people by these folks was on par with Baghdad Bob.

They worked in tandem with the Kerry campaign, creating anti-Bush and anti-American headlines, even using forged government documents, and reinventing old news stories in an attempt to unseat a President who stands in the way of their socialist agenda for America. To their surprise and dismay, on November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

Members of the European Union, and the UN, all of whom had been exposed for their corrupt protection of the world’s most brutal dictator, acting against America and the free world in their own greedy self-interests at the expense of millions of Iraqi’s, attempted to inject their will into the American election. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

Osama Bin Laden himself, marginalized by the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, relegated to the status of video terrorist, attempted to inject his will into the American election too, just as he did successfully in Spain. On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” said no!

They told us that 254 decorated Swift Vets were all liars, and that former POW’s were all liars too. They told us not to pay any attention to Kerry’s record as the most liberal member of the US Senate. They told us we didn’t need or deserve to see Kerry’s military records, and that his meeting with the North Vietnamese in France was a chance social event, even though his following false testimony before congress in 1971 was read right from the pages of a Viet Cong propaganda document.

On November 2nd, 2004, “we the people” once again said no!

“We the people” said no to all of this, and for that, I am a proud American today. But we only said no 51 to 48, a dangerously slim margin of true Patriots over Secular Socialists, which means, there is much work to be done in our country.

America’s moral majority took a stand, drew a line in the sand, and said this is the point at which the march towards secularism and socialism stops in our country. Our country is divided, 51 to 48, right down the line that separates morality from immorality. We know where the secular socialists live, in all the little blue counties on that election map. Our goal between now and 2008 must be to turn those blue counties red.

The red counties represent real American values of freedom over free stuff, the idea that right and wrong exists, and the understanding that America’s promise of personal liberty far outweighs any promise of temporary government issued economic security.

The red states don’t hate the wealthy, no matter how poor they are. They don’t believe anyone owes them anything, other than an equal opportunity to make their lives whatever they want it to be. They don’t believe America should be run by the UN, or that America should reduce itself to equal status in the world in order to eliminate the rightful envy of the world.

They believe in America, and all of the American ideals that made America the greatest nation on earth, and they are clearly committed to preserving real American values, whatever the cost.

The DNC is already talking about running Hillary Clinton in 2008, signaling that they still don’t get it. Hillary is left of Kerry and Edwards, a ticket that was already too left for America. She is left of her husband Bill, who was to the right of Kerry and Edwards, and who never received 50% of the popular vote.

On November 2nd, 2004, George W. Bush received more votes than any Presidential candidate in U.S. history, more than Reagan, and he was the first President to receive a clear majority of the peoples support since his father did in 1988.

At the same time, an already Republican House and Senate gained an even broader majority, leaving the DNC completely out of power, even losing their leadership, Tom Daschle in the process.

The message could not be clearer, yet the DNC, media elite’s and Hollywood socialists refuse to learn the lessons of the last several elections. The most divisive, intolerant, and hate filled group in America, now calls for unity from the conservative leadership. But this is no call for unity; it’s a call for mercy from the Right who has complete control in America today.

The mandate is on the Right, and the conservative leadership has an obligation to those who put them in power to not only preserve, but to advance the conservative agenda of returning America to its rightful place in the world. They have an obligation to lead America back to its moral heritage, away from the brink of secularism and socialism.

In the coming months, the mainstream media must be reformed from top to bottom, replacing propagandist with real news reporters who value “true and accurate” reporting over “fair and balanced” reporting. 527 groups and the likes must be put out of business for good; eliminating any possibility of another international coup attempt.

Congress must be forced to place all pending legislation and voting records online where anyone can access the performance data of those we elect to do our nations business, so that never again, will the people be locked out of the halls of congress where deals are cut that undermine the interest of the people who pay the bills.

There is much to be done, and conservatives have the mandate to get it done, so shame on us if we don’t. We are a moral nation, where secularists are welcome. There is no such place as a secular nation, where the religious are welcome. November 2nd must be the beginning, not the end…


White Paper on State Citizenship

T. Collins -- 10/04/94


I was born a first class citizen. I entered into contracts that, without my knowledge, made me a second class citizen. I am working on the legal process of restoring my first class citizenship status.

I was surprised to find that the United States government recognized two distinct classes of citizens, let alone that my citizenship status had changed. At first I did not believe it. It was not until I learned how to use the law library in the county court house that I was able to confirm my status. I am not an attorney so this paper should not be considered as legal advice. It may be used for the basis of your own research. This paper does not have a copyright, so you can copy all or part of it. This paper borrows research from other papers without copyrights written by people across the nation. I will describe the big picture first, then I will substantiate the claims made and give a more detailed picture later.

You may find the ideas presented here conflict with the model of government that you have been taught. You may also find these ideas impossible to believe. This is understandable. The further you read, the more you may change the way you filter information about what the government is doing. If you cannot believe any of this, please set this paper aside. Sometime in the future, you may come back to this paper and it may make more sense. I believe that the concepts described here are true. But, you should not! If you accepted the ideas in this paper without confirming them from other sources, then you are a fool! If I can change your model of reality in one paper then someone else might be able to fill your head with nonsense. Please be skeptical. Even if you do not agree with the central premise, you may agree with some of the research. If so, you will still get something out of this paper. There are many Citizens doing research on the topics described in this paper. Some will sell the results of their research while others will practically give it away. This paper does not discuss some of the more advanced topics (Citizen militia, commercial liens, common law liens, common law trusts). At the end of this paper, I will supply you with the names of books, magazines, newspapers, computer bulletin boards that fill in some of the details that I have excluded.

The big picture

The United States of America is a unique nation. It was the first constitutional republic in the world. Before the American Revolution, the King of England owned all the land in his colonies. The inhabitants of the colonies were his subjects. When the war was over, the King signed the Treaty of Peace. In that treaty he said that all the land in the former colonies was owned by the people and all of his sovereign powers that he held in the colonies were transferred, not to the government of the colonies but, to the People of the colonies. This made all of the Citizens of the colonies sovereigns. This has never happened before or since in any other country. In other countries, the government is sovereign. It makes laws for its subject-citizens and it gives them their rights. In the United States, the People were sovereigns. The People were endowed, by their creator, with certain rights and the government was instituted to secure those rights. We the People, gave a portion of our sovereignty to the state government, and the states gave a small portion of the sovereignty we gave to them, to the federal government so that it would be strong enough to defend the People. The Constitution for the United States of America describes the powers that the states gave to the federal government.

If the federal government is defined by the Constitution, and the Constitution says that I am a sovereign, why do I feel like a subject? I own my house. If I don't pay my property tax the government will go to a court and remove me from it just as the courts would remove me from an apartment if I did not pay the rent. Do I really own the land if someone can take it away from me simply because I don't pay them for the use of it? Could the King of England have the land taken away from him if he did not pay a tax? So long as I don't cause injury to someones person or property or defraud them shouldn't I, as a sovereign, have the right to do anything I want? Today there are so many rules and regulations that the government has that I think nearly everything I do is against some law. What has happened to my sovereignty? Isn't the government sovereign over me? Are there any sovereign People left in the United States of America?

There are hundreds of thousands of sovereigns in the United States of America but I am not one of them. The sovereigns own their land in "allodium." That is, the government does not have a financial interest in the their land. Because of this they do not need to pay property tax (school tax, real estate tax). Only the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution for the United States of America define the laws that they have to follow. This is a very small subset of the laws most of us have to follow. Unless they accept benefits from or contract with the federal government, they do not have to pay Social Security tax, federal income tax, or resident individual state income tax. They do not need to register their cars or get a driver's license unless they drive commercially. They will not have to get a Health Security Card. They can own any kind of gun without a license or permit. They do not have to use the same court system that normal people do. I am sure that most people reading this are saying to themselves that this can not be true. I know I did when I first heard of it.

The government recognizes two distinct classes of citizens: a state Citizen and a federal citizen.

A state Citizen, also called a de jure Citizen, is an individual whose inalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his/her state Constitution against State actions and against federal intrusion by the Constitution for the United States of America.

A federal citizen, also called: a 14th Amendment citizen, a citizen of the United States, a US citizen, a citizen of the District of Columbia, has civil rights that are almost equal to the natural rights that state Citizens have. I say almost because civil rights are created by Congress and can be taken away by Congress. Federal citizens are subjects of Congress, under their protection as a "resident" of a State, a person enfranchised to the federal government (the incorporated United States defined in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution). The individual States may not deny to these persons any federal privileges or immunities that Congress has granted them. This specific class of citizen is a federal citizen under admiralty law (International Law). As such they do not have inalienable common rights recognized, secured and protected in the Constitutions of the States, or of the Constitution for the United States of America, such as "allodial" (absolute) rights to property, the rights to inheritance, the rights to work and contract, and the right to travel among others.

A federal citizen is a taxable entity like a corporatio