Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul Freedom Writer Continues Education of Obama Fan Ron Paul sparked a Revolution. Here's some fuel for the fire.by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)
Monday, February 18, 2008
Below is a reprinting of the Obama Fan's Comment to the first lesson with my response following. The last post created a great stream of comments, thank you all for that.
I'm altering the response to include numbers for easier reference.
I will be brief when possible, but the point of my writing this is not for political soundbites, but for understanding. While the responses may be longer than you'd like, I promise they will be readable. Thanks for reading and commenting.
=================================================
1. First off I'd just like to say I never "dodged" the question in regards to why Obama is my candidate of choice. I flat out said I would not answer it because it is virtually meaningless to explain to you when nothing I can say will remotely change your mind.
2. You guys often say that Ron Paul's voting record shows that he will defend the Constitution. I say that is one way of interpreting it. I have little doubt that this is his intention; I'm not calling him a liar by any means. But what you see as supporting the constitution, I quite often see as contrary to the health of the country.
2b. Ron Paul often votes against pro-abortion legislation not because he is against abortion per se, but because he claims the states have the rights to decide. Of course then he tries to ban abortion at the federal level (Sanctity of Life Act), so I guess he's not above the feds telling us what to do as long as its in line with his beliefs.
3. I fully understand that taxes pay for my education (among other things). I have no problem with this. The vast majority of American citizens have no problem with this. I mean, if you want to sit there and say you specifically pay for my education because you pay taxes, then I guess I can say I pay for my education as well because I, too, pay taxes. Also, while some of my aid money is in the form of grants, a large portion is private scholarships that are in no part funded by you.
4. I'm not at all OK with the war, obviously. I don't like the fact that it was not approved by Congress; however, Congress has had a few opportunities to cut off funding to it and has failed to do so. This is part of the reason why their approval rating is lower than Bush's. By the way, Congress has the power to declare war, not fight it. The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the military, a power granted to him by the Constitution. As such he has complete command over the United States armed forces and, given the funding, can pretty much deploy them at will. This sucks, especially considering my previously-mentioned fact that Congress rarely denies funding. You can try all you want to prevent the President from ordering troops around, but ironically you'd have to violate the Constitution. Even more ironically: I sort of agree with you here. Commander-in-Chief sounds great when it's George-f******-Washington. Doesn't work so well with civilians.
5. I think we all understand that when a President is elected, a significant majority of the population basically gets shafted. This why we have the House, so if the will of the people changes quickly they can elect new representatives rather quickly. This is also why we have the Senate, so the people can't get pissed on a whim and elect crazies to the government. Checks and balances...it works pretty well until you get an authoritative president and a pussy-whipped Congress. This is one way in which I think a Ron Paul presidency would be good: checks and balances would work to their full extent because Congress would absolutely hate everything he is trying to do, not to mention the Supreme Court.
6. How dare you compare Obama to Adolf Hitler. Are you fucking crazy? Both are eloquent speakers, both are politicians, and both want change. Obama wants change by getting rid of Bush. Hitler wanted change by KILLING JEWS. Do you see the disconnect there? I don't understand if you just got angry or what near the end of your essay, but you sounded almost as racist as Ron Paul himself.
7. Oh, yes, I pulled that s*** out. I love mentioning Ron Paul's newsletter because there are basically two sides to it: either he wrote some of the most racist bulls*** in recent memory, or he didn't. I for one think he did, and if you were to say otherwise you'd basically just be hoping, becuase 'ol Ronny's statements on the matter have never been clear. However, if I become the devil's advocate and believe for a moment that what was written in the Ron Paul Political Report was NOT written by one Ronald Paul of Texas, then it raises a great question.
8. If Ron Paul does not have the organizational capacity to run a newsletter, how can he possibly run the most powerful government in the world?
Quod erat demonstrandum...
================================================
Quod erat demonstrandum? Hardly.
1. You could change my mind if you'd just answer the question I originally asked: How is Obama more qualified than Ron Paul to do the job he'd be elected to do? Again, this is what the President swears to do immediately prior to taking office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Esse Quam Videri.
2. You have every right to "see supporting the Constitution" as "contrary to the health of the country." That's part of why the 1st Amendment was written first. You can tell everyone how you feel, and if enough people agree, you can change the Constitution through an Amendment. Of course, when the government controls the media through the FCC and corporate subsidies, it may be hard to get your message out, so it's probably better we just let them decide what we want them to do, right? This is what Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he wrote:
"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
And similarly,
"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
But when the government controls the media (which is only possible by violating the Contract in order to do something we the people haven't consented to allow them to do) gaining an audience is difficult. Electing people who have no intention of keeping their Oaths ensures this access problem will increase. It won't be long until sites like this one are regulated if people remain asleep to the fact that every time the Government violates our Contract, their power increases and our liberty decreases. Read the Preamble to the Constitution. If you do, there is no way to construe the purpose for which that Contract was written to mean that individual liberty should ever decrease without consent. I guess I don't understand how supporting the Constitution (keep in mind that using your 1st Amendment right to promote changing the Constitution is supporting the Constitution) could ever be contrary to the health of the country. But then again, I've actually read it and understand its purpose.
2b. The Sanctity to Life Act was not based on a belief, it was based on science and was a completely Constitutional way (section 1, article 3) of addressing the issue of abortion. Moreover, this act was not as, you state, an attempt to "ban abortion at the federal level." It was a way to return power to the states on this issue and remove federal judicial jurisdiction over the states when deciding this matter. This article may help you understand that.
3. College is not a "right" despite what politicians would have you believe. It is a privilege. A privilege you wouldn't need grants to afford if the federal government weren't unconstitutionally involved in education. Some of the readers' comments to the previous article elucidate this better than I can.
I also used all of these methods to finance my education. I don't think you're a bad person for using these funds; in fact, I think you'd be stupid not to use these programs to benefit you individually since they are available and the money will be spent regardless (like Ron Paul's earmarks). But I'll also bet that if you asked a large majority of Americans "Do you mind the government using your tax money to pay for someone else's kid's college education?" you might be surprised by the answers. Again, all of these "good ideas" of government that violate the Contract benefit someone, but they hurt someone else, and they always make the government more powerful.
4. So you're not okay with the war, but you are okay with not supporting the Contract that would have prevented it from happening? Of course the Congress isn't going to cut funding, why would they? More power, baby. And since the war isn't delcared with the support of the people, it then becomes a political issue. And not supporting the war could cause the people not supporting it to be seen as not supporting the troops. Which could cost someone an election. More on this later. But just so you know, Ron Paul has voted against all funding bills and the troops have sent him more donations than all the other candidates combined. Surprisingly, the government/media's definition of supporting the troops seems to be different than the definition of the men and women who also took an Oath to defend the Constitution who are actually fighting.
A President who respected his Oath would have never asked Congress to pass the initial legislation that led to "war." Whether it's the War in Iraq, War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on whatever, these wars have one thing in common--they wouldn't be possible without violating the Contract. I can't say this enough, whenever the government does something we the people haven't authorized them to do, no matter how noble the cause, the individual citizen always pays the price whether in terms of financial freedom or in the sacrifice of rights and freedom.
5. I'm glad you see that half the country gets screwed when a President is elected. I'm just in disbelief that you don't understand why. People get screwed when politicians decide which "policies" are best for the entire country without ever getting the consent of the governed. Instead of saying, "The People have spoken" and claiming that they have a "mandate" (sound familiar?) to violate the Contract and implement their policies because they won an election, they'd say "Well, if the people really wanted something, they'd give us the power to do it by amending their Contract so that we could take care of it." Since the Contract protects the one thing that truly unites us, our unalienable rights, violating it necessarily divides us.
By keeping us divided and blaming the other party for the problems we face, they continue to increase the role of the federal government. The reason neither party ever says, "the real problem is that we are doing things we aren't allowed to do" is because the party out of power wouldn't be able to do the same thing once they returned to power. This is one of the biggest problems the Ron Paul campaign faces--he isn't running against one party, he's running against two, combined with a corporate controlled media that feeds decades of voter ignorance that by enforcing the idea that they are supposed to vote based on "issues" or "beliefs" instead of on who can best do the job they swear in to do. Take a survey when walking around class today. Just ask people what the Presidential Oath of Office is and ask them what the point of the Constitution is. I'd encourage all readers to do this and then post the replies you get below. I do it everyday. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Your balance of powers comment is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it further proves the point I am trying to make. Government, left to its own devices will always try to take power from the people. This is a deliberately inefficient form of government. Politicians have confused us by telling us that something has to be done, and it has to be done NOW!
In other words, what they are saying is, "We don't have time to ask for your consent before we decide what's best for you nor do we have time to even ask you if you want us, your government, to do anything about this particular issue at all. Eventually you'll get mad at us for the stupid decisions we make and let the other guys rule for a while. So we have to take full advantage of our time to rule so that the causes we believe in can be addressed despite the fact that we have no power under the Contract to address these issues unless you expressly grant it to us. But you don't know that, so we have to act now while we have the chance. Keep voting for what you believe in, suckers, when you kick us out we'll just blame the other party long enough for you to let us back in again."
The reason there are three branches is not so we can express our disapproval of the current Congress' policies. It was instituted to make sure the rights of the people were not harmed by government seeking power. If the Congress somehow got power hungry and passed a bill that violated the Contract (which, for the 100th time increases government power), the President could be counted on to veto it, if somehow he was in on the act and passed it, the Supreme Court (which was supposed to be above political influence because of lifetime appointments) could remedy the situation by striking it down. Why do you think they rule on the Constitutionality of issues?
6. I've already responded to your Hitler comment in the previous post, but I'll say it again here. First, if Obama's change is getting rid of Bush, he'll succeed because one part of the Contract that politicians haven't yet figured out how to ignore is Presidential term limits. Bush will be gone no matter who wins. Addressing your specific issue with my comment, if I'd only said that Obama was like Hitler because he could energize crowds with his speaking ability, you'd have every right to cry foul. But it doesn't end there, and it isn't really Obama specifically, but any candidate that doesn't support the Constitution. Hitler might have wanted change by killing the Jews, but he wasn't able to kill the Jews until the federal government had become powerful enough that nobody could speak out. This is the real connection. I don't think Obama wants to kill anybody, but for the 101st time, when the power of the federal government grows, the rights of the people decrease. Even if it is for a cause as noble as stopping global warming, providing universal healthcare, or fighting global hunger, if the people haven't given the government the power to do these things, the long term results are always worse than the problem itself. Just like the long term results of Hitler's ideas were far worse than the nationwide depression the country was facing when he took power.
7. Ron Paul's a racist. Yep. That's why he's the only candidate that steadfastly supports the Contract that protects the rights of the smallest minority of all, the minority of one--the individual. If individual rights were steadfastly protected, group rights would be completely unnecessary. Because individual rights aren't protected and groups of people are good at getting people elected so they can continue to violate individual rights, it makes sense for the political parties to divide people into "groups" like this and continue to perpetuate racism. This is also why it makes sense to use this politically charged term to discredit a man who threatens their power.
8. A government that does what it is actually allowed to do doesn't require a lot of organizational ability to "run." Moreover, the reason it is so big is because it is trying to run your life by deciding what's best for you without ever asking for your true consent. There is another term for people who have no rights and someone else makes all of their choices for them. They're called prisoners. What do prisoners want more than anything else? Freedom. The Prison Walls are being built with every Contract violating law that is passed. It's not too late yet, but before long it could be. Since this response all started with the Hitler comment, and you still don't understand the importance of protecting individual rights or the danger in seeing people in collectivist terms, I'll leave you with the following famous poem:
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Your fellow American,
John Armstrong
"Government is Simple. Politics is Complicated. Both are by design."
As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings in part or full of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
Social Bookmark It to Spread it.
strongarmedjohn@yahoo.com
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 40 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Another great article. It is truly hard for me to comprehend that individuals do not realize that everytime the government does something for them they lose liberty, no matter what it is. Perhaps many prefer the loss of liberty to having to stand and make their own choices.
I often wonder, How people can not make make the connection of the loss of liberty here and the decline of the US globally. I do have hope though as many people are starting to make this realization. Hopefully this realization comes before a major collapse of the US economy.
John it took your writing and watching Dr. King's, I have a dream speech to bring back to me what the Constitution is all about. The most important document in mankind's written history should be remembered exactly for what it is a contract between the people and government. Government stands to divide people liberty unites us.
I think another problem we as Americans have is summed up in your statement. In my mind there was no Federal Government until the ratification of the Constitution. As such we could not form a contract with an entity that was being formed. We were in fact forming a contract both between the "united" states and the people those states represented.
If the Federal Gov't was a party to the Constitutional contract that created it, then it would have to some degree the ability to waffle and/or attempt to back out of that contract. That is effectively what happened when the English Crown initially renigged on parts of the Magna Carta after signing it. The fact that the Federal Gov't was not a party to the Constitutional contract means that it doesn't have a right to break that contract. As a creation of that Constitutional contract it must do precisely what is within the contract, or it is nullifying its legitimacy to be the object of said contract.
The problem is that the states and the people they represent have forgotten who wrote the contract and that the Fed Gov is meant to be bound by it, rather than being a party to it.
Also, the NAACP president in Texas denounced those claims against Ron Paul being a racist saying that he's known Ron Paul for over 20 years and that he indeed recalls Paul mentioning on numerous occasions that he admires MLK.
I used to be a Ron Paul supporter. But I've realized I did not understand the role of the sole super-power in an increasingly hostile world, which has forced us to police the world, to SAVE THE PLANET.
Barack Obama is a 100 times better than Insane McCain or Billary "TAXES" Clinton.
Obama is different. He is as good as Reagan, as good as Ron Paul. He lives in the present, not the past... CHANGE!
Exactly, what everyone forgets is it takes 2 parties for a contract. I have to believe that is why RP is so big on contractual law. Everyone should be bound by the contracts into which they enter.
Smart-
Wouldn't policing the world create more global warming? It would seem to me, military operations expend a large amount of energy. That is alot of fossil fuel being burned to drive the police machine of the world
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-18 14:37:25
Smart,
Was that a joke?
If not, here's a simple thing to consider:
The Constitution exists in the present. This Contract tells the government what they are allowed to CHANGE. They can't contractually CHANGE anything unless we the people CHANGE the Contract by amending it to give them the power to do so.
What needs to CHANGE is the idea that the Constitution somehow exists in the past.
I've looked this up, and Ron Paul is no racist. He is quite the equalist, as opposed to Barrack Obama, who, in case you don't know, is an active memeber of a separatist church (that also requires commitment to Africa, and not America.) And Ron Paul, who puts an insane amount of stress on individualism, calls racism to be a "collectivist idea".
ps-I am, personally, a Ron Paul supporter in a constant debate with an Obama supprter, and John, I must say, I love your articles, man.
I guess the past few generations have been conditioned against the idea that there's a responsibility to hold government bound to the contract. Responsibility is like a muscle; you either exersice it or you get athrophe!
Ron Paul won't be nominated. America is not ready (yet) for this revolution, or atleast until it starts hurting us real bad. If Clinton or McCain becomes the President, would you feel nice?
I have failed as a Ron Paul supporter. But I saw arrogance in my fellow-RP supporters, their disdain for the power and influnce MSM has. I call it gross underestimation of Special Interest Groups and powerful corporations lobbying in Washington.
So, let us choose a candidate, who could actually win. I know you'd start talking about principles, and lesser-of-the-two-evils arguement. But you're only running away from the truth.
You'll have to make a decision, if nt now, then before November. Dr. Paul won't be running independent, he's a die-hard Republican. I'd be voting for the first time ever, all thanks to Dr. Paul. But 'd make sure the the one viable candidate of change we have, wins the election.
Obama is the right man for this job. He is not a socialist, but since he's a democrat, he has to take that stand in public. Believe me, he is as smart as Ron Paul, maybe even better.
I don't want to say anything against Dr. Paul, coz I respect him. But I have to think about my contry's future. This ain't a vieo game, and I must support Obama. I'd never want Billary to win, never. There's only one choice, OBAMA.
HERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT 'OBAMA', HILLARY, KUCINICH, EDWARDS, ROMNEY, MCCAIN, GUILLIANI, HUCKABEE, RICHARDS, THOMPSON INFACT ALL THE CANDIDATES ACCEPT RON PAUL, MIKE GRAVEL, DUNCAN HUNTER ARE CFR GOOGLE CFR. YOU CANNOT FIND ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT THIS COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. NOR CAN YOU FIND ANYTHING GOOD ON ANY OF THESE CFR CANDIDATES. YOU PEOPLE BETTER WAKE UP AND DO IT FAST. STOP DISAGREEING ABOUT ISSUES THAT DO NOT MATTER AND BE AMERICANS TOGETHER AGAIN. GET THE EVIL OUT OF OUR COUNTRY AND THEN WE CAN TAKE CARE OF OUR ISSUES.
FREEDOM IS TO BE PAID FOR BY THE BLOOD OF MARTYRS FROM TIME TO TIME. WE FORGOT WHAT WE ARE AS AMERICANS. WE FORGOT WHAT THE PATRIOTS OF OLD FOUGHT FOR. WE ARE NOT THE LAND OF WELLFARE & POVERTY, THE LAND OF ONLY THE RICH AND ELITE SURVIVE. WE WERE TO BE A NATION OF INDIVIDUALS WHOSE IDEAS & AMBITIONS BROUGHT US WEALTH & PROSPERITY, GOOD WILL TOWARDS OUR FELLOW MAN, NOT LOOKING FOR HAND OUTS OR A FREE RIDE FROM GOV. PEOPLE... GOOGLE CFR. THATS ALL I CAN TELL YOU!
The reasoning you assert for voting Obama is addressed in the article linked above. If you care enough to post here in hopes of bettering this country then I'm sure you will have no qualms about taking a few minutes to read it.
I believe Jefferson put it best why to keep government small.
I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
It is the lacked of an informed public that is perhaps the biggest challenge to overcome.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-20 03:36:17
DX10,
Thanks for the kind words. I'm not going to run for office. I'm going to continue to use the freedom I do have to kick ass in my career (which is teaching others how to do well for themselves and without making excuses) . Then in about 15-20 years when they and I are incredibly wealthy (in fiat dollar terms) I am going to help them and others get elected. I don't want to go to Congress, I want to get 10, then 20, then 50, then 100, then 200, then 400, then 535 members elected who understand what their job is and will do it. Not so I can be powerful, but so America (the 300,000,000 not the 535+1+9) can be.
In the meantime, I'll write and speak and wake up as many people as possible.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-20 04:00:47
Smart,
I'm glad you got turned on to "politics" because of Dr. Paul. I wish you'd gotten interested in government as well. Instead of addressing you with my words, here are some from people far wiser than I. If you can't see this connection, then you are truly lost. But that doesn't mean you are bad or that I dislike you. I'm just sad for you.
I'm going to write an article about this sometime this week, but here's a preview and the first line of the article:
Who is "We" in the Yes We Can? This is the first line from "Common Sense":
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
"We" are not the government. Neither are the politicians--they just control it. (I like that quote).
On Barack Obama and voting because of how "smart" or "good" someone is:
Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt. Shall Liberty or Empire be Sought? Patrick Henry, 1788 [From a speech made on June 5, 1788, in the Virginia Convention, called to ratify the Constitution of the United States.]
On Ron Paul:
When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. - Dresden James
On where we are as a country from Jefferson:
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all Power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. If we run into such [government] debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers.
And, again Jefferson on what the point of government and the Constitution is:
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson
And lastly the ridiculous idea of any government program Obama would introduce:
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us." Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor.
This isn't some kind of game we're playing here where I'm trying to "pick a winner." I am an American. I don't know what you don't get about that. American. And I will not stand idly by. With this in mind I leave you with four more quotes. (Maybe I'll just repost this response as an entire article).
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams (1780)
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams
And Lastly:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world, but the unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to him -- therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man. --Samuel Butler
Go lick the hand that feeds you and adapt yourself to the world; I guess I'm just an unreasonable man.
Posted By: John Armstrong
Date: 2008-02-20 04:09:12
Smart--last thing,
The only choice I have to make before November is between writing in Ron Paul, voting for Wayne Allyn Root (www.rootforamerica.com), or the Constitutional Party Candidate. I don't know much about that particular party yet; it sounds good, but I have to check it out first.
I won't vote for anyone who has no qualms whatsoever about placing their hand on a Bible, swearing to uphold the Contract, and then proceeding to forget they ever said it.
I agree 100%. We have lost the way as a people. We no longer believe integrity should stand for something. As a masses we no longer demand accountability and integrity from our leaders, they know this and that is why we see more and more government in our lives.
Everyday we see less and less people honor contracts that they enter into, is it any wonder our government does the same? The honoring of contracts definitely can be found on the same level as integrity.
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. S.Adams
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
