Thoughts Unthunk, Mostly

This was too good not to syndicate.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/reed/reed8.html

An Essay on Rejuvenation
by Fred Reed

I am persuaded that the gravest catastrophes to afflict this misguided planet were the inventions of agriculture, clean water, and antibiotics. Without these pernicious conceptions our squalid race might consist of a few millions of savages picking bananas and slaughtering the occasional bison. I do not say this in criticism of savages. Theirs was a reasonable existence. I like bananas,
which contain potassium. Bison is succulent. A savage could sleep late.

We should have let well enough alone.

But no. We had to wage chemical war against the various races of bacteria, and boil them alive, and the result was Los Angeles. Three hours a day of commuting, eight more of unnatural staring at witless documents in which no one should have the slightest interest, and then several more of induced corpulence mediated by the lobotomy box. We have come down in the world. Bushmen may have poor table manners, but they don’t commute.

Savagery is unjustly contemned. It is true that savages plundered, tortured, and made war mindlessly and without cease in a state of profound mental benightedness. So do we. As I write, the American president bombs some country or other, it doesn’t matter which either to him or me. The Secretary of State, Kind Of Leezer Rice, runs about advocating torture. Her performance as First Iroquois puts the United States exactly on the moral level of any other Neanderthals. But then, that is the usual state of man.

The distinction is only that we butcher in volume, wholesale as it were. Ours is a brutishness made impersonal, stripped of the fun and human touch. Misbehavior that savages effortlessly wreaked with materials and implements ready to hand, we achieve with sprawling industries that make unnecessarily complicated means of destruction. Why an elaborate bomber? Why not an obsidian knife?

Don’t misunderstand me, lest I be thought unpatriotic or subject to a balmy idealism. I believe that people should kill each other, in the greatest numbers possible, with abundance and overflow. But I say this as a matter of principle. In practice, as amusement, a bow and arrow allows a more leisurely extinction and lets all participate. It is more democratic. Sometimes it is well to sacrifice efficiency to entertainment.

Further, savages did not build shopping malls. When a primitive came out of his yurt or hogan or beaver lodge, he found nature lying about him as insouciantly appealing as a floozy in her boudoir. He presumably liked such vistas as much as we do. He did not respond to his appreciation by building a subdivision to bury what he appreciated.

Perhaps we are out of touch. Hunter-gatherism constitutes a superior form of being. Indolence beats hell out of work. It is much more pleasant to loll around the tipi, enjoying the breeze soughing over the plains and telling off-color stories than to go to some air-conditioned dismalalium and rot for thirty years as a compelled cubicle wart in an office painted federal-wall green. To any sensible being, the very idea of work is repugnant. It wastes time better spent in lazing, swimming, or the company of girls. Work usually requires effort. Effort is not a good thing. It should be essayed only in times of desperation.

I believe that modernly it was the Protestants who came up with the curious notion of the redemptive value of work. Of course, in the higher social classes the enthusiasm was usually reserved for work done by others. Like self-flagellation, enthusiasm for labor results from a perverse in-turning of the religious impulse. It gave us such horrors as Puritanism, Massachusetts, and sweatshops full of children. I see little good about it.

But it was agriculture that doomed us. Before this irreparable mistake, the females of the species spent an hour or two a day picking things to eat from trees, or finding roots and berries. The men sallied forth from time to time and killed something—food, each other, or the neighbors. It was a relaxed approach to things, and left time for admiring sunsets and raiding other tribes for women. But then….ah, but then.

Then came farming. It required foresight, husbandry, and plowing. None of these had much to recommend it. The practitioner had to plan, to save seed corn, to remember things; here were the awful seeds of bureaucracy. Soon he was getting up at ungodly hours of the morning to dig holes and carry great lumpish things and remonstrate with mules. By contrast the savage, replete with bananas and bison, enjoyed a gentleman’s leisure.

The worst defect of agriculture was that it allowed the population to grow like over-sexed kudzu. A few people when spread over a large world are picturesque, or at least avoidable. When they can grow food, a profligate fecundity takes over and soon you have roads, malls, stoplights, and disordered people who want to ban drunk driving.

What good has come of it? Some might argue that the Cherokee in his natural habitat could not read and could not manage the rudiments of arithmetic. In this he closely resembled a high-school graduate. It is true that to some extent the gurgling adolescent of today can use a calculator. The Cherokee had nothing to calculate, a far better thing. Instead of spending twelve years unhappily learning nothing in a regimented ignorance factory, he learned nothing while running through the woods and climbing trees. The choice is, as we say, a no-brainer.

The vices of the savage were precisely those of today. His virtue was that he could apply them only locally and spottily. Because he had no refrigeration, he saw no profit in killing more bison than he could immediately eat. Because he did not practice agriculture, he could not reproduce excessively, and so there were always enough bison. Incapacity has always been more a check on mankind than judgment.

The only hope may be avian influenza if the virus would only abandon its shiftless ways and mutate, although an asteroid strike would serve if I knew how to foment one. Perhaps the Black Death might return. I do not put much faith in radiation poisoning. It has not been adequately proven, though it might serve as a backup.

Those few of us remaining could live torpidly on Pacific Islands, eating mangos and crabs and only occasionally dismembering each other, intimately and with machetes. We have lost the sense of community. Bladed weapons would restore it. Between hecatombs they might lounge on white beaches and watch gorgeous red sunsets over a dark and threatening ocean. We are here for but a short time anyway. Better that we eat coconuts and rut than unduly document things.

Surviving New Orleans

It's been a while since I've posted anything new, but this had to be shared with as many people as possible. Right now, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, there are people holed up in an office building, surviving in New Orleans. Those people have a connection with the rest of the world right here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/.

Cops are looting and things are chaos. It's a warzone. At least these people know better than to depend on anybody but themselves. Our prayers go out to those few people in Outpost Crystal. Godspeed, and stay safe.

Governments turn to Organized Crime for Revenue

Strike The Root presented an interesting article today, about a town in Colorado that doesn't take too kindly to competition on their turf. The Mob apparently has a new look. This one includes a shiny badge. Somebody forgot to pay their protection money.

The raid was a major sting operation, and officials spent a month in preparation for it after finding out about the game. Never mind Andy Griffith walking into the restaurant and having a talk with the owner: "You know, Jeff, what you're doing isn't legal, and you're going to have to shut it down." "Oh, thanks Andy, I'm sorry, I wouldn't have held the poker game and risked felony arrest as well as loss of my liquor license if I thought I was doing anything wrong. As far as we knew, we were doing everything by the book." (That last line is an actual quote from a waiter at the restaurant.) Instead, the smart-ass, arrogant police chief Dale Smith says, "Normally, we don’t give warnings for felonies." Looks like Barney Fife has gotten a promotion.

The Des Moines SS

Thanks to Gunner over at No Quarters for the story on this. If this is an indication of what this country is quickly coming to, there's more to worry about than I thought. The Police in Des Moines apparently do not think very highly of "due process" anymore. Here is the story of a young man who just had his property seized for no apparent reason.

Des Moines police on March 28 confiscated a legally purchased AK-47 assault rifle from the home of Patrick Younk, 18. Police began investigating Younk after they received a complaint about threats made against Roosevelt High School students.

Sgt. Todd Dykstra said Younk did not take the weapon to school or threaten anyone. The gun was shown to Younk's friends at a tennis court in the 4600 block of Observatory Road on March 5. Younk was not arrested or charged with a crime, police said.

Dykstra said police confiscated the gun because "we just didn't want to take any chances."

Dykstra said the case had been turned over to the Polk County attorney's office for review because the gun was transported in Younk's car.

Sgt. Todd Dykstra should be fined, if not fired, for this breach of protocol and violation of the rights of an American Citizen. I think maybe he needs to have his drivers license revoked, and his car seized, because we just don't want to take the chance of him mowing down pedestrians.

"In the Year of Our ... well... nevermind"

Thanks to Ravenwood for the heads-up on this. Here is yet another reason why public education is a crock and needs to be tossed out the proverbial window.

Thanks to the Washington Times this week, we have one more journalist to make fun of. It seems Michael Gormley is convinced that we lost 33 years of history somewhere along the road.

ALBANY, N.Y. -- In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out. The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars.

Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.

The life of Christ still divides the epochs, but the change has stoked the ire of Christians and religious leaders who see it as an attack on a social and political order that has been in place for centuries.

For more than a century, Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era.

Although most calendars are based on an epoch or person, B.C. and A.D. have always presented a particular problem for historians: There is no year zero; there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs. Critics say that's additional reason to replace the Christian-based terms.

Just so we are all on the same page here, there is no 33 year gap. The A.D. does not stand for "after death." The year 1 A.D. was the first year after the birth of Christ. The year 1 B.C. was the year directly before 1 A.D. I wonder how many editors this piece of fine journalism passed by.

"When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us," said Steven M. Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

The new terms were introduced by academics in the 1990s in public elementary and high school classrooms.

In New York, the terms are entering public classrooms through textbooks and worksheets, but B.C.E. and C.E. are not part of the state's official curriculum, and there is no plan to debate the issue, said state Education Department spokesman Jonathan Burman.

"The standard textbooks primarily used in New York use the terms A.D. and B.C.," Mr. Burman said. Schools, however, may choose to use the new terms, although B.C. and A.D. will continue to be used in the state Regents exams, many of which are required for high school graduation.

Candace de Russy, a national writer on education and Catholic issues and a trustee for the State University of New York, doesn't accept the notion of fence-straddling.

"The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police -- a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order," she said.

For centuries, B.C. and A.D. were used in public schools and universities, and in historical and most theological research. Some historians and college instructors started using the new forms as a less Christ-centric alternative.

"I think it's pretty common now," said Gary B. Nash, director of the National Center for History in the Schools. "Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few."

But not everyone takes that pluralistic view.

"I find it distressing; I don't like it," said Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, which finds politics intruding on instruction. He said changing terms accepted for centuries because of a current social movement could threaten other long-held principles.

Mr. Nash said most major textbook companies have adopted the new terms, which are part of the national world history standards. But even those standards have been called into question. In a 2000 national resolution, the Southern Baptist Convention condemned the new terms as "the result of the secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society."

"Is that some sort of the political correctness?" said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an independent group with 60,000 educator members. "It sounds pretty silly to me."

Talk about an understatement.

New Element Discovered

SCIENTISTS DISCOVER NEW ELEMENT - GOVERNMENTIUM

A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element has been name "Governmentium." Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These 311 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert.

However, it can be detected, as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over 4 days to complete, when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in co ncentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass."

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element which radiates just as much energy, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons.

The Team Europe Cheerleader

Yesterday Jeff Feffer decided it was somebody else's turn to drive the bus. It's amazing how delusional people can get when they forget that we had two World Wars the last time Europe decided to drive. Here are some of the jucier bits of lunacy for you....

What "job" was she talking about? We most definitely were not getting the job done in Iraq, I pointed out. In recent years, it's Europe not the United States that's been on the right side of the major foreign policy issues of our time, be it Europe's objections to the Iraq War or its diplomatic approach toward resolving the conflicts with Iran and North Korea -- an approach that is far more likely to succeed than American military oomph.

Do people actually believe this over there? You think diplomacy with someone who kills millions of his own people is suddenly going to roll over and stop his aggression just because other nations ask him too? That's amazing. Especially taking into consideration the progress the UN made during the 11 years after the Persian Gulf war. Brilliant work there on the part of diplomacy.

"As for taking care of their own people, the social system in Europe -- the kind that ensured the job security, high-quality education, crime-free streets, and comparative lack of poverty that friend so clearly admired in Switzerland -- was clearly superior to anything the average American could hope for."

Thought I'd take the opportunity here, to point out that Switzerland's government is more pro-gun than even the U.S. And from what I understand they are even less socialist in ideals than we are. They require every household to have a well-maintained machine gun over there.

"While the resentment of U.S. power and domination was the same as ever, according to Gordon, the students were no longer willing to give the United States its usual pass for its excesses. What's more, they were only too happy to contemplate the alternatives that Gordon offered. "And they would say, yeah, we'd take China. Germany? Yeah, Germany is fine. France? Yeah, that would be good," he said. "They were looking at me like, well, of course, we'd rather have those countries more powerful than the United States."

I laughed at this. We'll start with France. When was the last time France ever successfully defended herself, let alone actually did anything abroad worth mentioning--unless they were tagging along on one of our expeditions. Fact of the matter is, France has no muscle to flex, and like it or not, you have to be able to back up what you say with force when needed.

Germany is the only one out of the three mentioned that actually has any potential to be a global source of rational leadership. We've all seen what can happen when Germany focuses it's resources toward a war machine too. Their mechanical capabilities are one of best in the world. But as of late, they seem to have little ambition toward anything outside the EU. There's something to be said for that as well, don't get me wrong.

China. China is the "sleeping dragon." Anyone in the U.S. who actually knows anything about what's really going on, fears China more than any other nation in the world. They have the resources, the technology, the manpower, and the capital to rival the U.S. militarily, if they chose to. And that's a scary proposition, considering the differences in ideologies that exist between the two countries. If China ever decides to stir from its slumber (some say it's a "when" not an "if") we're all in trouble. And if you think it's a bad idea to have America's ideals of democracy behind the wheel of the bus, you'll be wishing you never had such thoughts if China is driving.

"The most astonishing fact revealed by the new poll is that 34 percent of Americans agree that Europe should be running the show. Let me repeat this: one-third of Americans want Brussels, not Washington, to be calling the shots on the global arena."

and then....

"While the current American leadership certainly has a martial disposition, it seems that virtually everyone else -- the majority of Americans included -- is weary of Washington playing globo-cop..."

At this point, I'm fairly sure this guy is on crack. When did 34% become a majority?
And just to counter that point anyway, I'd be willing to bet that most of that 34% couldn't tell you the difference between socialism and capitalism, and quite possibly couldn't tell you what country Brussels is in.

"It is conceivable that, in another four years, Hillary Clinton or some other vaguely palatable Democrat will paint the White House blue and put the French back into French fries. But it will take a long time to undo the damage the neo-cons have done to the United States' standing in the world -- and the damage America has done to the world. By all means hang in there for Hillary. As for me, I'm with the 34 percent of Americans rooting for Team Europe. "

*shiver* That just gives me the willies. Anyway, let's all take a minute to remember what got us into this predicament to begin with. The Persian Gulf War ended in the early 90's and the U.N. started in with their mandates and weapons inspectors in Iraq. We decided then that we could get by alright with trying to keep Saddam Hussein on a leash. During the 11 years after the end of the Gulf War, Hussein showed a blatant disregard of the U.N. and their meaningless mandates. I say meaningless because after seeing mandate after mandate after mandate being tossed aside, the U.N. continually wanted more and more talking, and absolutely no consequences for Iraq. All the while Hussein continued the mass-murder of people groups who were at odds with his Baath Party. We appealed to the U.N. time and again to actually DO something instead of huddle together and talk about more talking. Time and again that request was denied. We here in the United States generally hold to the principle that if you want something done, do it yourself.

And that's exactly what we did. Like it or not, you Europeans were given the chance to help out and take a turn at the driver's seat. You chose to fall asleep at the wheel. We in turn, simply decided to take another bus.

I make no mention here of any supposed connection to Al-Queda or the existence or non-existence of WMDs. The facts are so muddled now with those angles that I will not even venture to decipher what's fact from fiction anymore. The simple facts are, the United Nations did nothing to enforce the resolutions they imposed in the first place on Iraq.

Were there other reasons that played into this mess for going to war? You bet. But the enforcement of the resolutions should have been enough, let alone the genocide that was happening on a daily basis there.

And if you want to talk about trying to be in the driver's seat, why don't we ask France, Germany and Russia the REAL reason they wanted to keep Hussein's dictatorship in Iraq in power. They just might reveal themselves to be a bit more capitalistic than they claim to be.

History of the Income Tax

[Excerpt from Neal Boortz's soon-to-be-released book "The FairTax Saying Goodbye to the IRS and the Federal Income Tax", soon to be published by Regan Books.]


"Now here's where things get really depressing. After the idea of an income tax was declared to be unconstitutional the politicians in Washington chose sides and drew their battle lines. On the one side we had Democrats who were eager to spend the money that would come from an income tax. The Democrats included a platform calling for such a constitutional amendment permitting the income tax in both their 1896 and 1908 platforms. Republicans were opposed.
Those who favored the income tax scheme met with considerable success in capturing public sentiment with promises that the tax would "soak the rich" and would leave the vast majority of Americans alone. Wealth envy was every bit as alive and well in the early 1900s as it is in the early 2000s.

The history timeline now brings us to Texas Senator Joseph Bailey, a conservative Democrat, who cooked up a scheme to humiliate congressional Republicans. Bailey introduced a bill calling for an income tax. Even though Bailey himself was opposed to an income tax, he thought that the Republicans would rush in to kill this legislation. This would further the image that Democrats were trying to cultivate of Republicans as hostile to the poor and concerned only about protecting the wealthy. Wouldn't you know it; things didn't turn out as Bailey had planned. Liberal Republicans, backed by Teddy Roosevelt, came out in support of the bill. Passage seemed all but certain.

Conservative Republicans needed a way to derail the Bailey Bill and the growing threat of an income tax. In one of the worst examples of legislative play-calling in the history of our Republic, Republicans came up with the brilliant idea of announcing that they would support the idea of an income tax, but only if that income tax came about as the result of an amendment to our constitution. This group of conservative Republicans felt that while there might be some chance the proposed amendment would actually make it through the House and the Senate, there was just no way in the world that the legislatures of three-fourths of the states would vote for ratification and make it a part of our Constitution.

Oops.

Sail through the House and the Senate the amendment did. The vote in the Senate was 77-0 and the House approved it by 318-14. It was off to the states for ratification. Conservative Republicans were certain that the effort was doomed. They were wrong.

Democrats launched a massive effort to convince the people that any income tax would only be directed at the wealthy, and that ordinary Americans would be left unscathed. Conservative legislatures in the West and the South convinced their constituents that the adoption of the income tax would have little effect on them, since incomes high enough to be taxed were rare in these areas. The people, thus anesthetized, raised little objection and the 16th Amendment was ratified on February 12, 1913 . This date should be added to December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 as dates in American history that shall forever live in infamy."

The FairTax (c) 2005 John Linder & Neal Boortz

Ode to Tax Day

Ravenwood brings us a good rant today, enlightening us as to just where our taxes go. It's a good read, and ever so relevant today. It's BAG Day!

2 Days until BAG Day

Buy A Gun Day, the new designation for the day formerly known as tax day, is only 2 days away. All this is readily explained by the holiday's originator here.

Unless a substantial donation comes into the Liberty Papers (hint hint), I'm afraid I'm going to have to forego the celebrations this year. But don't let that stop the rest of you!

Another Plea, Another Dollar

Is not the purpose of the Law to punish criminals?



Fox News gives us the story of a man claiming responsibility for an abortion clinic bombing, orchestrating the Atlanta Olympics bomb, and they say he will confess to two other bombs as well in order to escape the death penalty, and instead serve 4 consecutive life sentences. This guy is clearly deserving of the death sentence if ever there was anyone. If, indeed, he really did commit the crimes to which he's confessing, it is all the MORE reason to let him fry. It's quite possible that he had nothing to do with the Atlanta bomb, and is covering up for someone else he may be associated with in his white-supremist religion. Even if that is the case, this man maliciously took the lives of multiple unarmed civilians, with the one abortion clinic bomb. It appears the prosecution would certainly be able to convict him for that one, with little problem. The man was on the run in the Appalachian Mountains for 5 years.

I ask you this... Why do we need him to confess to more than the one bombing? Is that not enough to thoroughly punish him?

Nevertheless, if the judges accept the pleas he will spend the rest of his life in prison without a prayer of getting out.

Let's analyze the logic in all this for just a moment. Man commits heinous crime and goes on the run for years. Man gets caught and realizes he is going to pay for his crimes with his life. Man then admits to FURTHER heinous crimes, in order to .... escape... a harsher penalty. More Crime = Less Punishment. Brilliant.

Oh yeah.. and guess who gets to pay for his 4 consecutive lifetime stays (pretending that such a thing would even be possible) in Club Fed? We do, faithful citizens... we do.

Breaking the Pattern

I hadn't planned on doing this, but my temptation has gotten the best of me. There is just so much news out there not being covered by the mainstream in a sufficient manner, and worth commenting on. So consider this a fair warning: The Liberty Papers will now be expanded to do news commentary.

The original intent of the Liberty Papers was to run a mimicking pattern of Federalist Papers, collectively penned by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison. Papers of this style will continue to run periodically, and can be recognized by their title, reflecting the "No.#" pattern as has already been presented in the first three in the series.

Enjoy.

No. 3

To the People of the United States:

There is an old proverb, of origin unknown to me, about a fox guarding a hen house. A better mental picture than this cannot be mustered, when considering Public Education. All of history will attest, that when tyranny reigns, it retains its place above the populace by the suppression of knowledge and truth. It is continually in the best interest of the tyrant, to keep enlightenment out of arms reach of the unsuspecting civilian body, who dutifully pour their tax money into the almighty governmental machine.

If we can agree that education and gain of knowledge sparks enlightenment, and the best interest of tyranny is indeed to keep such enlightenment from the public, what good sense does it make to put in any government's hands the Key to Power, which lies in our educational system? This question I ask pleadingly, that you, the Good People of this Nation would take into consideration the dangers posed by allowing the government body to rule the roost in the realm of education.

If for no other reason than a conflict of interest, I beg, take responsibility in hand and arm yourselves with at very least the truth of the relationship between the Government of the United States, and the quality of knowledge imparted to our populace, or lack thereof.

The State of South Carolina and Gov. Mark Sanford, have introduced legislation that is being called "Put Parents in Charge." This piece of legislation would effectively take control of education away from the Government and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of parents. "Put Parents in Charge" will allow for vouchers to paid out on behalf of the parents who have already paid for public schooling via the state and county tax system, but desire to send their children to private schools, or to homeschool them. The system also allows for the parents to send their children to schools in a different school district, eliminating the situations involving children trapped in the dilapidated urban school districts.

Until we can work to completely abolish State-funded schooling altogether, I would encourage the residents of South Carolina, and in fact the entirity of the 50 states to make sure these sorts of legislation get passed in every state. Parental choice of schools is of the utmost importance in the quality of education recieved, as well as a solution to the dangers of "dumbing down" our children for the sake of further empowering an elitist government.

People of the United States, put your parents back in charge!

Publius II

No. 2

To the People of the United States of America:

We now embark on this journey of exploring the shortcomings of our current society and governmental infringements on Liberty, not for our own enjoyment, but for the good of a nation. For we must first call attention to these shortcomings, clearly identifying the error and fault, before moving to any sort of solution to the matters at hand. Make no mistake, there are certain forces at work in this Great Nation of ours that would very much benefit from, and who now pursue the matter of, keeping silent the voices who even now cry out in opposition against tyranny. Let us not mistake the intentions of the dispicable piece of legislation known as McCain-Feingold. Former President of the United States Ronald Regan once stated, "True, lasting peace cannot be secured through the strength of arms alone. Among free peoples, the open exchange of ideas ultimately is our greatest security." It is with this in mind, that I move as promised into the realm of Education. For it is the very baseline for exchanging ideas.

In 1925, We the People should have seen it. It should have been spotted at last, right at that very moment, in that courtroom in Tennessee, during that hot summer of 1925. Red flags should have instantly, and finally, been raised and the country should have awoken to the dangers of allowing a government to have near-complete control over the education of the populace. For those who do not know to what it is I refer that occurred in the summer of 1925, I direct your attention to The State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes - the now infamous Scopes Monkey Trial.

I am not here today to defend or destroy the outcome of that trial, but rather to expose to you the tragedy of the very occurance of such a case, and any others like it. The case was brought, at the instigation of the ACLU, against Mr. Scopes for teaching the principles of the Theory of Evolution in a public school. The charge was brought for violating the State of Tennessee's anti-evolution legislature, that had been passed in 15 states by the time the case was heard in the summer of 1925.

What business, I ask, does a government of any kind have in what our children are taught regarding the emergence of mankind? "Well," you say, "it was the parents who did not want these things taught to their children." And I say to you, it is their Creator-given Right to avoid whatever teaching they see fit for their children!

That being the case, what recourse did these parents have, given the fact the government controls the near-entire educational system and then legislates that it be mandatory for children attend? Thanks to the principles of supply and demand, private schooling is so hard to come by in America that the cost of sending a child to private school eliminates this option for most of our American families. This, I tell you, is the root of the problem.

In 1925, if privatized schooling was the norm rather than the exception, this entire travesty known as the Scopes Monkey Trial could have been avoided altogether. The parents who disapproved of the teaching being administered could have simply sought out a school closer to their own desires. Parties on both sides of the issue were damaged in reputation and in dignity, and for what cause? In either possible outcome of this trial, the People of America lose. The only viable solution would have been to wrest control of the right to school our children from the death grip of the United States Government.

Now 80 years later, how far have we come from this experience that tore us apart as a nation, and is still being heatedly argued over today? Sadly we stand convinced that the schooling of children is a social problem to be solved by Congressmen and Presidents. Somehow we have lost further touch with the fact that the Right to school our children, much less the Responsibility, simply does not belong in Government hands. How much money in taxes collected must be spent, and how many hours in lawsuits fought must go to waste, before the People of the United States stand and say, "Enough is Enough!"

Take back what is yours. The power to exchange ideas with the Next Generation is too precious to simply surrender to those who have shown little ability to properly handle the responsibilities that are theirs.

Publius II

No. 1

To the People of These Great United States of America.

"After an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government...." Those were the words written by Alexander Hamilton, in his project known as the Federalist Papers. Together with John Jay and James Madison, he laid out the validity of becoming a solid union under one great document, called The Constitution. It is with great sadness and regret, that I must repeat the same words, under very different and yet equally deserving circumstances.

We, the People of the United States have suffered an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency in the federal government, due not to the lack of Union or the lack of a Constitution, but the lack of adherance to this great plan for liberty, as laid out by our Founding Fathers.

Just as Hamilton stated in his day, the People today face a subject once more that "speaks its own importance." When we comprehend the consequences of doing nothing, we again are considering nothing less than the very existence of this great Union.

Hamilton pondered, "It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force." Today this same principle rings true still. It is up to us. Will we decide while we still can? Or will we allow this great experiment to draw to a close and fall to ruin?

Among the obstacles set in front of us by decades upon decades of allowing tyranny to creep in, ever so sublte and serpent-like, are government encroachments on virtually every facet of private life. "Whether in church, bedchamber, street, field, or forest...," just as the devil himself pointed to his work for the sake of Young Goodman Brown, so is the work of tyranny in the lives of our private citizens. Every facet of life has been invaded by it, and now we are confronted with such a web of deciet as has never before been seen.

Over the course of the next few weeks I shall endevour to point out the specific faces of tyranny as well as the masks it wears, as it stealthily steals away Liberty as a wolf devours its sheep. I will as well, attempt to give satisfactory answer to the objections that have arisen to such claims as I have made here.

I would never have imagined that there could be arguments against granting a people Liberty, and yet here they are, facing us at every turn. I will attempt to shine light on these arguments, and others. I shall begin my next address in the realm of education, on account of the fact that this appears to be the most important of areas, as it is knowledge and reason that seem most lacking when Liberty is absent from the hearts of men.


Publius II