NEW SURVEY: Vast majority of students want due process rights that colleges refuse to provide

JACKSONVILLE - That's right, it's all Betsy Devos' fault. Not the Comrade and his Dear Colleague letters and respect for the Constitution. Dear Colleague: End Disaprate Impact based policies. 

What a concept! "Innocent until proven guilty" And yet in that bastion of human rights - the college campus - they ain't getting it. Until a conservative comes in and tries to fix it.

•  85 percent of students think their accused classmates should be considered innocent until proven guilty. According to last year's due process report, however, less than 30 percent of America's top universities guarantee students that protection. 

Where's the outrage? Where's the protests? Where's the sit-ins, the defecating on cars?

C'mon college students!! You're better than that.

And c'mon college administrators and activists!! We know you're not better than that, but c'mon.

A new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education finds that a vast majority of college students support fundamental due process protections in campus disciplinary hearings in order to ensure they are fair. Most top college and universities, however, fail to provide them. NEW SURVEY: Vast majority of students want due process rights that colleges refuse to provide 85 percent of respondents think students accused of misconduct should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but only 30 percent of top schools guarantee this vital protection. 8 in 10 students surveyed think students accused of breaking the law should be allowed to have a lawyer help defend them in campus disciplinary proceedings, but only three top colleges allow it. Colleges argue that due process can be minimal because hearings are merely "educational." Students overwhelmingly disagree, with 84 percent responding that the primary purpose of a campus disciplinary hearing is to provide justice and protection to students on campus. PHILADELPHIA, June 13, 2018 — A new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education finds that a vast majority of college students support fundamental due process protections in campus disciplinary hearings in order to ensure they are fair. Most top college and universities, however, fail to provide them.  The survey of student attitudes builds on FIRE's "Spotlight on Due Process" report, released last year, which found that the overwhelming majority of America's top universities fail to provide students accused of serious misconduct with even the most basic elements of fair procedure.  FIRE's new survey, "Proceeding Accordingly: What Students Think about Due Process on Campus," found that 85 percent of students think their accused classmates should be considered innocent until proven guilty. According to last year's due process report, however, less than 30 percent of America's top universities guarantee students that protection. Similarly, 8 in 10 students surveyed think students accused of breaking the law should be allowed to have a lawyer in campus disciplinary proceedings, but very few top colleges and universities allow active assistance from an attorney. "There's a vast gulf between the robust protections that students want and to which they are morally entitled, and the meager protections that most colleges actually provide," said Samantha Harris, FIRE's vice president of policy research. "Campus proceedings can have permanent, life-altering consequences. It's time for colleges and universities to start listening to their students and providing safeguards that reflect the seriousness of these processes." The survey measures student support for due process protections in three scenarios: when a student allegedly breaks a rule, drinks alcohol under the age of 21, and engages in sexual misconduct. Support for protections under each scenario varies by gender and political affiliation. Key findings include: 98 percent of students think it is very important or important that students have due process protections in campus judicial proceedings. Female students are eight percentage points less likely to think a student should be considered innocent by the school's administration if the student has allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct than if the student has allegedly broken an unspecified rule. Only 16 percent of students think that the primary purpose of a campus disciplinary hearing is to provide an educational experience for those involved, while 84 percent of students think that the primary purpose of a campus disciplinary hearing is to provide justice and protection to students on campus. More than 80 percent of students responded that an adviser should be allowed to help defend students during campus disciplinary proceedings. Although three-quarters of students support cross-examination in campus disciplinary proceedings, only one-third of institutions in FIRE's "Spotlight on Due Process" report consistently provide students a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. When a student has allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct, very liberal students are 19 percentage points less likely than their very conservative peers to think that those students should be considered innocent until proven guilty by the school's administration. However, when a student has allegedly engaged in underage drinking, very liberal students are 13 percentage points more likely than their very conservative peers to think that students should be considered to be innocent until proven guilty by the school's administration. For this survey, FIRE contracted with YouGov (California), a well-regarded nonpartisan polling and research firm. YouGov used an online survey to interview two- and four-year undergraduate students at American colleges and universities between Jan. 29, 2018 and Feb. 12, 2018, and provided FIRE with a final data set of 2,225 responses. YouGov has polled for The New York Times and The Economist. The Pew Research Center finds that YouGov outperforms its competitors when it comes to providing accurate survey results. A copy of the full report and methodology, an FAQ, and the toplines and tabulations from YouGov can be accessed on FIRE's website. The survey project was made possible by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation to conduct polling on campus attitudes, engage in legal and social science research, and mobilize a wider audience on and off campus in the fight for student and faculty rights. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending liberty, freedom of speech, due process, academic freedom, legal equality, and freedom of conscience on America's college campuses. CONTACT William Rickards, Communications Coordinator, FIRE 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) 510 Walnut Street | Suite 1250 | Philadelphia, PA 19106 Unsubscribe   |   View this email in your browser

Laboratories of Liberty | Weekly Standard

But at such moments, it is worth also recalling one of Justice Scalia's famous pre-judicial speeches, "The Two Faces of Federalism":

" we have to bear in mind that [federalism] is a form of government midway between two extremes. At one extreme, the autonomy, the disunity, the conflict of independent states; at the other, the uniformity, the inflexibility, the monotony of one centralized government. Federalism is meant to be a compromise between the two. As such, it is a stick that can be used to beat either dog."  

"Accordingly, federalism sometimes counsels in favor of state discretion and sometimes against it. When states have discretion, they serve as laboratories of democracy and liberty alike."

from weeklystandard.com
https://www.weeklystandard.com/adam-j-white/laboratories-of-liberty

Laboratories of Liberty

John Rutledge was a natural first-round pick for the Supreme Court. An accomplished statesman and patriot, Rutledge was a delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, where he chaired the crucial Committee on Detail. Once the new federal government was in place, President Washington made Rutledge the second justice ever appointed to the nation's highest court. But in early 1791, after just 15 months on the court, before hearing even a single case, he got a better offer—namely, to serve instead on South Carolina's Court of Common Pleas and General Sessions.

"This State having thought proper to create the Office of Cheif [sic] Justice & offer it to me," he explained in a letter to President Washington, "I conceive I could not with any Propriety refuse it." So he proceeded to "inclose, & resign, my Commission, of an Associate Judge, of the United States."

Today, such a move would be utterly incomprehensible; no sitting justice would ever leave the U.S. Supreme Court for a state court. But Rutledge's choice of the South Carolina bench over the federal bench was, at the very least, symbolic of the relative standing of the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts in the founding era, before Chief Justice John Marshall firmly established the Supreme Court as our nation's constitutional center of gravity.

Today, we look reflexively to the Supreme Court as the definer and defender of constitutional liberty. But state courts, too, have played an important role, and to the extent that the Supreme Court leaves too little jurisprudential space for state supreme courts—or to the extent that the state courts themselves choose to simply echo Supreme Court opinions—then our liberty may suffer. That is Judge Jeffrey Sutton's appeal in his new book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law.
The author is well suited to explore this subject. Since his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2003, Sutton has been one of the leading constitutionalists of his generation, on a federal appellate court that regularly adjudicates constitutional disputes, including challenges to state laws. But perhaps just as significant for present purposes is Sutton's pre-judicial career: For three years he served as Ohio's solicitor general, representing the state in federal and state courts, including nine oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court. From this firsthand experience, Sutton is able to explain the importance of federalism in protecting liberty not only in theory but in practice.

The theory is well rehearsed, of course: By our Constitution's allocation of power to the federal and state levels of government and by the federal and state governments' own separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers, "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." So explained James Madison, famously, in Federalist 51. (So famously, in fact, that one wonders whether Sutton's choice of title—which on its face refers to the 50 states plus the U.S. Supreme Court—is an intentional double entendre.)

How has theory played out in practice? Sutton details four accounts of constitutional issues in which the state courts, applying the states' own constitutions, developed or refined constitutional rights in lieu of the U.S. Supreme Court. "There is a rights-innovating side to federalism," Sutton explains. "State constitutional litigation can proceed without waiting for, or worrying about, the shadow of constitutional law."
And "rights," in this context, can include not just negative rights but positive rights—that is, not just freedom from government restraint but also entitlement to government aid, as highlighted by Sutton's first case study: student claims of a constitutional right to equalized funding of schools across districts. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the Supreme Court declined to infer such an entitlement from the U.S. Constitution and thus left undisturbed the wide disparities in school funding among richer and poorer neighborhoods that result when schools are funded by property taxes. But "while the U.S. Supreme Court permitted" stark school-funding inequalities to continue, Sutton explains, "the States demanded change." While Texas's approach had survived review in the U.S. Supreme Court, the state's supreme court declared its framework unconstitutional under an 1875 provision of Texas's constitution, which provides that "it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools." Applying Texas's constitution to Texas's people, the Texas judges concluded in 1989 that "children who live in poor districts and children who live in rich districts must be afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to educational funds. Certainly, this much is required if the state is to educate its populace efficiently and provide for a general diffusion of knowledge statewide." Sutton notes that Ohio largely followed suit, under its own constitution; we can add Kansas to that list, since its supreme court struck down the state's school funding structure last year. And all of them follow in the wake of the New Jersey supreme court, which since 1985 has been micromanaging the state legislature's funding for schools.

Sutton's other three case studies are more conventional stories of negative rights, yet each highlights the nuances, opportunities, and challenges evident when state constitutions and state courts are layered atop conventional federal-centric accounts of constitutional development. After the Supreme Court declared in Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) that public schools could compel students to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, at least three state courts issued decisions construing their own states' constitutions as prohibiting such compulsion; then the Supreme Court famously followed suit by reversing itself in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943). (The landmark Barnette decision popped up in the news again last month, after President Trump stated that people who do not stand for the national anthem "shouldn't be in the country.") Sutton stresses that state-specific protections on this issue—including those that came from state courts after the U.S. Supreme Court gave nationwide protection in Barnette—remain crucially important: "Should the U.S. Supreme Court change its mind yet again in this area," citizens of those states still "would have nothing to fear" from state legislative efforts to compel salutes and pledges.

Today, we look to the Supreme Court as the definer and defender of constitutional liberty. But state courts, too, have played an important role, and to the extent that the Supreme Court leaves too little space for them then our liberty may suffer.

Similarly, after the Supreme Court adopted a rule excluding from trial any evidence obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution's right against unreasonable search and seizure but then created an exception for evidence obtained unconstitutionally but in "good faith," many state courts and legislatures rejected that exception and thereby expanded constitutional protection against unlawful searches and seizures beyond what federal law affords.
Sutton's other example focuses on one of the most infamous Supreme Court decisions: Buck v. Bell (1927), in which the Court affirmed progressive eugenics laws by ruling that the U.S. Constitution does not protect people against involuntary sterilization. After Buck, states took the lead in ending such programs themselves, first through nonenforcement of their eugenics programs and finally by repealing them. "The state legislatures become the eventual heroes of their own story," Sutton observes.
But Sutton's inclusion of the eugenics story in his broader narrative also highlights precisely the reason why litigants seek protection first and foremost in the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution: to protect themselves from the impositions—sometimes draconian impositions—of state and local governments, from which the state's own courts and laws offer too little protection.

Indeed, that is precisely why the postbellum Republicans added transformative amendments to the Constitution, especially the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition against state violations of "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," or state deprivations of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," or states' denial of "equal protection of the laws."

Judge Sutton is not naïve, of course: "Taking the independent status of state constitutions seriously does not inherently favor the government or the individual," he warns. His former boss, Justice Antonin Scalia—Sutton clerked for him in the early 1990s—understood this, too. Sutton recalls a line from Justice Scalia's last opinion for the Court: "The state courts may experiment all they want with their own constitutions, and often do in the wake of the Court's decisions."

But at such moments, it is worth also recalling one of Justice Scalia's famous pre-judicial speeches, "The Two Faces of Federalism":

we have to bear in mind that [federalism] is a form of government midway between two extremes. At one extreme, the autonomy, the disunity, the conflict of independent states; at the other, the uniformity, the inflexibility, the monotony of one centralized government. Federalism is meant to be a compromise between the two. As such, it is a stick that can be used to beat either dog. [Emphasis added.]

Accordingly, federalism sometimes counsels in favor of state discretion and sometimes against it. When states have discretion, they serve as laboratories of democracy and liberty alike.

And when the Supreme Court preserves space for the states to experiment, the Court itself can benefit from those experiments. This is Sutton's most important insight. "By allowing the state courts to be the first responders in addressing innovative rights claims," he observes, "the U.S. Supreme Court can gain valuable insights." After all, "in a federal system, nothing prevents the state courts from being path blazers."
When constitutional issues percolate through state courts first, each state is able to experiment with less risk of unintended consequences. When Supreme Court justices decide how to calibrate a constitutional right and define its practical outer limits, they do so under the shadow of uncertainty cast by the fact that their rulings will affect laws, people, and preexisting arrangements far removed from the specific litigation at hand. But when state courts decide the case, the judges do so with the knowledge that their decision will affect far fewer people, laws, and arrangements—and the judges will often be more familiar with them in the first place. They also will be better rooted in the culture and expectations of the people whom the judges serve.

True, each state will make its own mistakes. But as Sutton stresses, that's the point: "fifty imperfect solutions—each grounded in constitutional guarantees the States have chosen for themselves, crafted to meet the peculiar needs of each State, and implemented by accountable state officials—are almost certainly superior to one imperfect solution."
Any constitutionalist making this argument must contend with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), a case in which national intervention by the Supreme Court was utterly necessary and justified. Sutton's attempt to distinguish Brown (from, specifically, the school-funding cases) falls flat. "There is nothing complicated in principle about a Supreme Court ruling that says the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from denying students entrance to a school based on race," he writes; "not so with school funding." One can say this only by ignoring the decades of complication and unrest that followed Brown, beginning with the Court's own follow-up opinion, in Brown II (1955), which directed federal district courts to take all actions "as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases." Thus followed decades of acrimony over how best to remedy the segregation that Brown struck down—fights over busing, school district lines, remedial affirmative action, and so on. Brown's principle was simple, but putting that principle into effect was not, and perhaps the better justification for the Supreme Court's intervention in Brown was simply that decades of strife and litigation were a small price to pay to erase the still greater problem of racial segregation.

But on issues less significant than the nation's history of racial discrimination—which is to say, on almost all other issues—Sutton's call for increased state involvement in constitutional development is sensible, especially because it could help to bring constitutional deliberation back closer to the people themselves.

Sutton recognizes this, too: "There is something to [Justice Felix] Frankfurter's insight that civil liberties are best protected when they become part of our political culture and part of what we Americans do for each other, not part of what the Court does for us. Each time the Court protects us from our own mistakes, we cheapen self-government and undermine its capacity to steel us against the next ill-conceived policy urge of the moment." What a well-timed civics lesson.

Sent from my iPhone

Anthony Kennedy Has Important Parting Advice for Liberals | Illinois Family Action

JACKSONVILLE - Good for Kennedy, he gets one right on the way out.

[B]egin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief.

from illinoisfamilyaction.org
https://illinoisfamilyaction.org/2018/06/anthony-kennedy-has-important-parting-advice-for-liberals/

Anthony Kennedy Has Important Parting Advice for Liberals

Posted by David E. Smith

June 28, 2018

Written by David E. Smith

This week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in NIFLA v. Becerra should drive a stake into the heart of an Illinois law that requires pro-life medical professionals to refer patients for medical procedures/services they find morally objectionable such as abortion, sterilization and certain end-of-life care protocols.

This tyrannical legislation (SB 1564) was signed by Republican impostor Bruce Rauner and sponsored by Chicago Democrats. In writing the majority opinion of the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy offers some constructive criticism to totalitarian policy-makers:

[B]egin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief.

Writing for National Review, conservative pundit David French points out that Kennedy's rebuke is crystal clear: "Progressives can't 'progress' past a fundamental respect for liberty and tolerance for their fellow citizens."

Let's hope and pray that liberals (as opposed to Leftists) heed the First Amendment's civil rights protections for all citizens, including Christian conservatives. Maybe they can return to the principle embodied in the aphorism:

"I wholly disapprove of what you say [or don't say]—and will defend to the death your right to say it [or not say it]."

The fact that this case was decided by a 5 to 4 vote should be disconcerting to freedom-loving Americans. We too-narrowly avoided setting a legal precedent that would have granted government bodies the authority to compel speech and with it ushering in a significantly diminished understanding of our First Amendment rights. This concern was raised by Alliance Defending Freedom president Michael Farris when he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that this ominous law specifically targeted "disfavored speakers."

Sent from my iPhone

SPEAKING WORDS OF WISDOM.....

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- Dante Alighieri

To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. -- Confucius

Or, as T.S. Eliot famously put it: "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." (From the 1950 play "The cocktail party") 

H. L. Mencken warned us long ago. Some of his more colorful quotes certainly ring true in light of recent events:

As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. 

Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

What men value in this world is not rights but privileges.

The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.

The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights.

Never be lukewarm.Life itself demands passion.He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.Good citizenship, for Americans, is not a spectator sport.Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen.Welcome to my site.

http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/2012-Ohio-Voter-Guide.html

Farewell Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul's Farewell Speech to Congress

"Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed," Paul said. "The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified."

This will go down alongside George Washington's Farewell address and Dwight Eisenhower's cautionary farewell speech re: the threat from the military - industrial complex.  Perhaps if the Republican's had not suppressed the voice of the Paul-ites at the DNC in the same manner as the DNC suppressed the mention of God, the election results may have been different. 

from the DailyBell.com
http://www.thedailybell.com/3693/Ron-Holland-No-Paul-No-Vote-in-November%20Mitt%20Romney%20would%20today%20be%20the%20president-elect

http://www.thedailybell.com/28279/Ron-Holland-To-Romney-and-the-GOP-Elites-What-Goes-Around-Comes-Around

Oh well, what's four more years of pain?

Enjoy. 

from CampaignforLiberty.org:

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/national-blog/transcript-of-farewell-address/

Below is the transcript of Ron Paul’s farewell address to Congress:

Farewell to Congress

This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor. At the end of the year I'll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36-year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.

It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.

To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.

The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.

How Much Did I Accomplish?

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways – thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.

All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn't give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn't give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.

The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there's no "loot left to divvy up."

Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.

Authoritarianism vs. Liberty

If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.

During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.

I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have.

Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts, generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 20th century our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary systems had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agreed that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claimed to be "progressive" ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable.

They failed to recognized that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.

Some complain that my arguments makes no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last 100 years, even with these new policies.

But the damage to the market economy, and the currency, has been insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency and undermine productivity and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.

The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.

The Age of Redistribution

This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to left alone. That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts.

The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.

The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn't produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends.

If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue.

We Need an Intellectual Awakening

Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.

If it's not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascismwith even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.

This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn't succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely – that is until it too fails. There's a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won't be pretty.

The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.

If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.

Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it's for one's own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.

No More 'isms'

The great news is the answer is not to be found in more "isms." The answers are to be found in more liberty which cost so much less. Under these circumstances spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves.

Just this recognition – especially if we move in this direction – increases optimism which in itself is beneficial. The follow through with sound policies are required which must be understood and supported by the people.

But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change in direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be the return of optimism.

Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one that we have had for the last 100 years, has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated, and moral system that provides the answers. We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause.

It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have neither, but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests.

After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today's possible outcome. The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live.

Dependency on Government Largesse

Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples:

• Undeclared wars are commonplace.
• Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement.
• The economy is overregulated, overtaxed and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system.
• Debt is growing exponentially.
• The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights.
• Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people.
• The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot resentment thrown our way.
• It's now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial.
• Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington.
• Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders "isolationists."
• Sanctions are used to punish countries that don't follow our orders.
• Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine.
• Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.

Questions

Excessive government has created such a mess it prompts many questions:

• Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
• Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
• Why can't Americans manufacturer rope and other products from hemp?
• Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender as mandated by the Constitution?
• Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the FED for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy beginning to wane?
• Why do our political leaders believe it's unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold?
• Why can't Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
• Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air?
• Why should there be mandatory sentences – even up to life for crimes without victims – as our drug laws require?
• Why have we allowed the federal government to regulate commodes in our homes?
• Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize AIPAC ?
• Why haven't we given up on the drug war since it's an obvious failure and violates the people's rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can't even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem?
• Why do we sacrifice so much getting needlessly involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world and ignore the root cause of the most deadly border in the world-the one between Mexico and the US?
• Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the Executive Branch?
• Why does changing the party in power never change policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
• Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign banks and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008 and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes?
• Why do so many in the government and the federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
• Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty?
• Why can't people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty?
• Why is there so little concern for the Executive Order that gives the President authority to establish a "kill list," including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
• Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong.
• Why is it is claimed that if people won't or can't take care of their own needs, that people in government can do it for them?
• Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?
• Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
• Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren't they the same?
• Why don't more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
• Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands?
• Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which requires authoritarians to use violence, or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world great religions.
• Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
• Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it's the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
• Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility, since there's such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do?
• Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust, the anger and frustration? Yes there is, and there's a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easy.

Trust Yourself, Not the Government

Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible.

Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn't get in the way.

We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons.

Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people and rewards the special interests who end up controlling both political parties.

It's no surprise then that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power seeking, with philosophic differences being minor.

Economic Ignorance

Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive, although today it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals. Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies, as the economy languishes in a deep slumber.

Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them.

Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative.

The immoral use of force is the source of man's political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well-intentioned – or especially when well-intentioned – the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.

This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home, and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens.

It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it's permissible to go into one's neighbor's house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant.

No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.

We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech-a dangerous trend. Since 9/11 monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required.

The Proliferation of Federal Crimes

The Constitution established four federal crimes. Today the experts can't even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books – they number into the thousands. No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system – especially the tax code. Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless federal expansion of the criminal code we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension, more than the Soviets ever had, and more than any other nation today, including China. I don't understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems.

The federal register is now 75,000 pages long and the tax code has 72,000 pages, and expands every year. When will the people start shouting, "enough is enough," and demand Congress cease and desist.

Achieving Liberty

Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

Two choices are available.

1. A government designed to protect liberty – a natural right – as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person's liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously – though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that: "power corrupts."

Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There's no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.

Today's mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.

The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It's amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.

The Financial Crisis Is a Moral Crisis

Many are now acknowledging that a financial crisis looms but few understand it's, in reality, a moral crisis. It's the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and permits the exponential growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it.

Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want; option #1 or option #2. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a "little" tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a "touch of pregnancy." It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking. And the results speak for themselves.

A Culture of Violence

America now suffers from a culture of violence. It's easy to reject the initiation of violence against one's neighbor but it's ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people – practically at will.

Because it's the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to "do good." They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the "consent of the people." The minority, or victims of government violence never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse.

This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to "do good," as well. It is claimed that war, to prevent war for noble purposes, is justified. This is similar to what we were once told that: "destroying a village to save a village" was justified. It was said by a US Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s, as a result of American bombs and sanctions, was "worth it" to achieve the "good" we brought to the Iraqi people. And look at the mess that Iraq is in today.

Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well.

First, we recognize that individuals shouldn't initiate violence, then we give the authority to government. Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things goes badly, will be used to justify an individual's "right" to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority. If this cycle is not reversed society will break down.

When needs are pressing, conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority. It's then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the wealth discrepancies increase – as are already occurring – violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program.

When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizen, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting, never lose sleep over the death and destruction their bad decisions caused. They are convinced that what they do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffer just can't be helped.

When the street criminals do the same thing, they too have no remorse, believing they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All moral standards become relative. Whether it's bailouts, privileges, government subsidies or benefits for some from inflating a currency, it's all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and unfortunately is of little concern of most members of Congress.

Some argue it's only a matter of "fairness" that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this. First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than the poor. Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it's fair to those who end up paying for the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there is no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due and that's what the economic slowdown is all about.

Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read and how to spend their money.

To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession.

Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People

Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified.

Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored, or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: if it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what "a virtuous and moral people" means and how to promote it. The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power.

If the people are unhappy with the government performance it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limitations of power and love of freedom.

If this is the problem all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem.

It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have, is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit, will play havoc with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt.

But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.

Expect the rapidly expanding homeschooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to build a free society with Constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal government controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties.

The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it's essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.

Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.

I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom.

Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.

If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one's natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one's own talents.

Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement.

Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims.

Conclusion

What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties, which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of "blow-back" is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.

5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns.

Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends.

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it's too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth – considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It's time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It's time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do.

Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There's every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.

What I'm talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.

The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won't work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

Benjamin Franklin claimed "only a virtuous people are capable of freedom." John Adams concurred: "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people's beliefs or habits.

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt.

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

It doesn't mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons it's easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles.

Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it's the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.

The Constitution or more laws per se, have no value if the people's attitudes aren't changed.

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is "envy" which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is "intolerance" which leads to bigoted and judgemental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out "the plain truth of things." The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

 If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.