Live Video: CPAC Conference Today

See the Annual Convention for Conservatives Live

Saturday's schedule includes: Sen. Santorum (9am), Gov. Pawlenty (9:30am), Bill Bennett (11:15am), Ann Coulter (12:30pm), Rush Limbaugh (5pm)

Farmer Builds Model of Biblical Temple

A retired farmer has spent more than 30 years building an enormous scale model of a Biblical temple.

Alec Gerrard has spent 30 years constructing the ancient Herod's Temple. Photos: GEOFF ROBINSON

From The Telegraph

Alec Gerrard constructed the amazing 1:100 scale model, which is now housed in a huge building in his back garden Photo: GEOFF ROBINSON

Alec Garrard, 78, has dedicated a massive 33,000 hours to constructing the ancient Herod's Temple, which measures a whopping 20ft by 12ft.

The pensioner has hand-baked and painted every clay brick and tile and even sculpted 4,000 tiny human figures to populate the courtyards.

Historical experts believe the model is the best representation in the world of what the Jewish temple actually looked like and it has attracted thousands of visitors from all over the globe.

But Mr Garrard, who started the elaborate project in his 40's, says his masterpiece will not be finished in his lifetime.

"I've always loved making models and as I was getting older I started to think about making one big project which would see me through to the end of my life," he said.

"I have an interest in buildings and religion so I thought maybe I could combine the two and I came up with the idea of doing the Temple.

"I'd seen one or two examples of it in Biblical exhibitions, but I thought they were rubbish and I knew I could do better.

"I have been working on it for decades but it will never be finished as I'm always finding something new to add."

Mr Garrard, from Norfolk, spent more than three years researching the Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans 2000 years ago and deemed to be one of the most remarkable buildings of ancient times.

He then started to construct the amazing 1:100 scale model, which is now housed in a huge building in his back garden.

"Everything is made by hand. I cut plywood frames for the walls and buildings and all the clay bricks and tiles were baked in the oven then stuck together," he said.

Mr Garrard sculpted and painted 4,000 figures, measuring just half an inch and all wearing their correct costumes including 32 versions of Jesus.

Visitors come from all over the world to see the model and Mr Garrard provides binoculars so they can see all the details.

Could Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor Become the First Catholic Prelate Since the Reformation to Join the House of Lords?

There is considerable discussion in Britain about the possibility that the soon to be retired Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, could be the first Roman Catholic churchman since the Reformation to serve in the House of Lords.

In a major lecture delivered this week, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor demonstrated why he wields influence far beyond Britain's Catholic community. He is a counter-cultural figure who has thought deeply about society, politics, the Church, and the secularism and spiritual poverty that characterize modern, western nations. The Cardinal's lecture from Westminster Cathedral follows:

Conservative Senator Blasted for Pro-Family Stance

From OneNewsNow

By Charlie Butts and Marty Cooper

A Utah state senator has been disciplined over remarks about homosexual activism.

State Senator Chris Buttars recently commented to a documentary filmmaker that he believes the homosexual lifestyle is immoral, adding that militant homosexual activism poses a grave threat to American culture. Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, says Utah's Senate president Michael Waddoups caved in and took punitive action against Buttars instead of supporting his own constituent.

"What's unfortunate is the Republican leadership has thrown him under the bus," he contends. "Senator Buttars' comments and beliefs are shared by the vast majority, certainly of Utahans, and by the conservative majority of Americans."

Waddoups has removed Buttars from his post as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a move which Barber calls a validation of the radical left-wing agenda. Barber believes action taken against Buttars indicates the Republican Party is deserting the traditional values that helped make it strong.

"Until they start defending those values unapologetically and boldly as Senator Buttars has done here, they will continue to lose membership," he points out. "And who needs Democrat-Lite? So having a bunch of RINOS, Republicans in name only, in the GOP has just decimated the Republican Party."

In a Liberty Counsel press release, Barber claims the Republican Party is "spiraling into the abyss of political irrelevancy." He also states that America's conservative majority is starved for leaders to represent traditional values.

Barber is asking people to contact Senator Waddoups and urge him to reinstate Senator Buttars.

Jesus was a Reformed Racist, Says Anglican Church of Canada

From The Telegraph
By Damian Thompson

The Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) has published a Lenten reflection that portrays Jesus as a racist who saw the error of his ways after being challenged by the Canaanite woman in Matthew's Gospel. The ACoC was long ago taken over by politically correct bores but, as Anglican Samizdat notes, this "reflection" turns Jesus into a sinner - in Christian terms, a pretty basic heresy. Here's the reflection. Sick-bags at the ready:

“… a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’ He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the houseof Israel.’ But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ He answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.’ ” - Matthew 14:22-27

This not a story for people who need to think that Jesus always had it together, because it looks like we’ve caught him being mean to a lady because of her ethnicity. At first, he ignores her cries. Then he refuses to help her and compares her people to dogs.

But she challenges his prejudice. And he listens to her challenge and grows in response to it. He ends up healing her daughter. What we may have here is an important moment of self-discovery in Jesus’ life, an enlargement of what it will mean to be who he was. Maybe we are seeing Jesus understand his universality for the first time.

Or maybe not. Maybe someone has been on a "racism awareness course" and decided to redefine the divinity of Jesus in a way that flatters ethnic sensibilities. How very Anglican. How very Canadian.

Senate Bars FCC from Revisiting 'Fairness Doctrine'

From OneNewsNow
By Jim Abrams

The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Senator Shelby: "You Have To Be Born In America To Be President"

We're getting an enormous number of hits today because someone linked the following YouTube video to one of our earlier posts about the Holy Grail of American politics, Obama's birth certificate. It remains under lock and key in a Honolulu vault. Thanks go to Senator Shelby for reminding America that, for some reason, the document has never been made public.

No One Trusts John McCain's Shoe Shine Boy

It would seem from the comments reported in the following column that Lindsey Graham's Democrat colleagues don't know him very well. They are suspicious that he might harbor some ulterior motives in advocating nationalization of the banks and socialism for the American economy. We wish he had some conservative instincts and loyalty to Republican principles, hidden or otherwise. Haven't they noticed that he's John McCain's shoe shine boy?

What is Lindsey Graham Up To?

From The New Republic
By Noam Scheiber

You may recall that Lindsey Graham has been strongly intimating we should nationalize our banks. Not only that, but he says several other Republican senators are open to it.

So why won't Democrats, many of whom feel the same way, at least discuss it with him? Obviously one issue is the enormous complexity, which everyone would like to avoid. But the bigger hold-up is that Democrats just don't trust Graham. The same senior Senate aide I spoke with yesterday told me, "I think they’re betting on failure. I don’t know what his angle is. I’m hesitant to give him credit given my severe loathing for the guy."

Then today, another senior Democratic source elaborated, suggesting Democrats think Graham's nationalization comments are designed to talk down the banks' stock, making it impossible (as opposed to just extremely difficult) to attract private capital and making nationalization more likely. That is, the fear is that Graham wants to force the Democrats' hands. “These people say ‘free markets,’ ‘leave everything alone,’ ‘let them fail,’” says the source. “Now all of a sudden they’re saying ‘nationalize the banks?'” The cynicism is just incredible.”

For what it's worth, I'm personally torn. There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of Graham and the Republican caucus. But he did sound genuinely exercised about the situation when he spoke to the Financial Times last week. (Graham’s office didn't return a call seeking comment.) And even Democratic senators like Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer have inadvertently talked the markets down with comments about nationalization.

My Muslim President Obama

From Forbes.com
By Asma Gull Hasan

I know President Obama is not Muslim, but I am tempted nevertheless to think that he is, as are most Muslims I know. In a very unscientific oral poll, ranging from family members to Muslim acquaintances, many of us feel, just as African-Americans did for the non-black but culturally leaning African-American President Bill Clinton, that we have our first American Muslim president in Barack Hussein Obama.

I know it's odd to say this. At first, I thought I was the only Muslim engaging in this folly, and I am reluctant to express it lest right-wing zealots try to use "Muslim" as a smear and cite my theory as proof of an Islamic traitor in the White House or some such nonsense. But, since Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, "I have to support my fellow Muslim brother," would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice.

"Well, I know he's not really Muslim," I would quickly add. But if the person I was talking to was Muslim, they would say, "yes he is." They would cite his open nature and habit of reaching out to critics, reminiscent of the Prophet Muhammad's own approach, and also Obama's middle name, Hussein. Most of the Muslims I know (me included) can't seem to accept that Obama is not Muslim.

Of the few Muslims I polled who said that Obama is not Muslim, even they conceded that he had ties to Islam. These realists said that, although not an avowed and practicing Muslim, Obama's exposure to Islam at a young age (both through his father and his stint in Indonesia) has given him a Muslim sensibility. In my book, that makes you a Muslim--maybe not a card-carrying one, but part of the flock for sure. One realist Muslim ventured that Obama worships at a Unitarian Church because it represents the middle ground between Christianity and Islam, incorporating the religious beliefs of the two faiths Obama feels connected to. Unitarianism could be Obama's way of still being a Muslim. (And let's not forget that the church Obama worshiped at for so many years had a minister who reminds most Muslims of their own raving, excitable ministers. Even if Obama really is Christian, he picked the most Muslim-esque minister out of the bunch to guide him.)

The rationalistic, Western side of me knows that Obama has denied being Muslim, that his father was non-practicing, that he doesn't attend a mosque. Many Muslims simply say back, "my father's not a strict Muslim either, and I haven't been to a mosque in years." Obama even told The New York Times he could recite the adhan, the Islamic call to prayer, which the vast majority of Muslims, I would guess, do not know well enough to recite.

I think many of us Muslims see Obama as Muslim, or at least of Muslim heritage, because his background epitomizes one of the major Muslim experiences--a diverse upbringing that eludes any easy classification as specifically one religion or one culture. So many of us Muslims around the world have Islam in common, but an altogether different culture from one another. Many Muslims share a culture with a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist community but not the same religion. When faced with such diversity, there are no hard and fast rules for Muslim identity.

The Qur'an speaks often of the umma, or the worldwide community of Muslims. In the early days of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad led the small umma. Every decision, every effort, everything was for the umma--people who were often unrelated by blood but had become related by choice as Muslims. In those early days, many Muslims had gone against the wishes of their own families in converting to Islam, pitting brother against sister, father against child. Perhaps that's why the concept of umma became so dear and is still echoed today--in my opinion, echoed more than that Western favorite jihad--in Muslim homes, whether those homes are in the United States or in Palestine.

Perhaps it is my--and most Muslims'-- loyalty to the umma that is behind our insistence on seeing Obama as Muslim. Islam survived and continues to survive because Muslims believe we have to respect and take care of each other, as members of the umma. If we were to start excluding members, or revising our broad guidelines for admittance, the very essence of the community feeling that is important in Islam, that gives me and other Muslims comfort everyday, would be undercut. So when Obama says he's not Muslim, my umma mentality says I know better. Once you have a Muslim parent, especially a dad, you're in. Whether you like it or not, Muslims all over the world see you as one of them.

I work with my father, and, once, we were seeking business with a white American man who had married a Muslim woman. Noticing how much fond attention my dad paid to this man, I asked him why he liked the man so much. My dad responded that, in his marriage to a Muslim woman (who wasn't related to us), "He's our brother-in-law!" So if that white, middle-aged man can be my brother-in-law, then Obama can certainly be my Muslim president.

Asma Gull Hasan is the author of Red, White, and Muslim: My Story of Belief.

Religion Of Peace Update: Wife Beheader Only Charged With Second Degree Murder

From Traditional Values Coalition

Muslim TV Executive Muzzamill Hassan, the man who has been arrested for cutting his wife Aaisya’s head off, is being charged with second degree murder in the slaughter.

First degree murder includes premeditation, planning or lying in wait to kill the person; second degree murder is non-premeditated.

“Why is this man only being charged with unpremeditated murder,” asks TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “Police have yet to find the weapon used to cut her head off, but it’s likely that he planned this killing and lay in wait for her. How many people routinely carry around swords or cutting weapons big enough to lop off a head? Would Muzzamill have been charged with first degree murder only if he’d used a wood chipper or a guillotine?

“Are police going easy on Muzzamill because he’s a Muslim? Would cops treat evangelist Pat Robertson the same way if he chopped off his wife Dee Dee’s head at the 700 Club headquarters in Virginia Beach?”

Muzzamill had a long history of mistreating his wife. This is why she finally decided to divorce him and seek a restraining order to keep him away from her. This is Muzzamill’s second wife.

According to Islam expert Daniel Pipes, Islamic theology teaches that a Muslim who has his or her head cut off cannot enter into Paradise!

A battle is looming over whether or not to interpret this crime as an honor killing or domestic violence. An honor killing is done to a woman who has shamed or embarrassed her family or husband. In this case, Muzzamill had claimed she had no right divorce him – even though she was his second wife.

In addition, the whole concept of Bridges TV was fraudulent. It pretended to be a moderate voice for Islam, yet was endorsed by some of the worst Islamic radicals in the U.S., including Nihad Awad, Ibrahim Hooper, Iqbal Yunus and Louay Safi.

Phyllis Chesler has written on the topic of domestic violence versus honor killing: “Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?”

Cutting Off Heads Is Standard Practice And Religious Duty In Islam

The Qu’ran (Koran) contains numerous verses that encourage Muslims to behead, mutilate or slaughter those considered to be infidels. Here are a few:

5:33-“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution (by beheading), or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;”

8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.”

47:4- “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”

9:123: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”

2:191- “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.”

5: 45-- “We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear. Tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.”

2:193- “Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah”

9:29- "Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, (Christian and Jews) who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute (Zizziya tax) by hand, being inferior.”

8:17—It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah is a real merciful indeed!)

“As more Muslims immigrate to America, we will be seeing more and more cases of violence against Muslim women – including beheadings,” said Lafferty. “Islam poses a serious threat not only to American security, but to women who are treated like slaves or property in Islamic homes.”

Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI for Lent 2009

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR LENT 2009 "He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was hungry" (Mt 4,1-2) Dear Brothers and Sisters! At the beginning of Lent, which constitutes an itinerary of more intense spiritual training, the Liturgy sets before us again three penitential practices that are very dear to the biblical and Christian tradition – prayer, almsgiving, fasting – to prepare us to better celebrate Easter and thus experience God’s power that, as we shall hear in the Paschal Vigil, “dispels all evil, washes guilt away, restores lost innocence, brings mourners joy, casts out hatred, brings us peace and humbles earthly pride” (Paschal Præconium). For this year’s Lenten Message, I wish to focus my reflections especially on the value and meaning of fasting. Indeed, Lent recalls the forty days of our Lord’s fasting in the desert, which He undertook before entering into His public ministry. We read in the Gospel: “Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was hungry” (Mt 4,1-2). Like Moses, who fasted before receiving the tablets of the Law (cf. Ex 34,28) and Elijah’s fast before meeting the Lord on Mount Horeb (cf. 1 Kings 19,8), Jesus, too, through prayer and fasting, prepared Himself for the mission that lay before Him, marked at the start by a serious battle with the tempter. We might wonder what value and meaning there is for us Christians in depriving ourselves of something that in itself is good and useful for our bodily sustenance. The Sacred Scriptures and the entire Christian tradition teach that fasting is a great help to avoid sin and all that leads to it. For this reason, the history of salvation is replete with occasions that invite fasting. In the very first pages of Sacred Scripture, the Lord commands man to abstain from partaking of the prohibited fruit: “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gn 2, 16-17). Commenting on the divine injunction, Saint Basil observes that “fasting was ordained in Paradise,” and “the first commandment in this sense was delivered to Adam.” He thus concludes: “ ‘You shall not eat’ is a law of fasting and abstinence” (cf. Sermo de jejunio: PG 31, 163, 98). Since all of us are weighed down by sin and its consequences, fasting is proposed to us as an instrument to restore friendship with God. Such was the case with Ezra, who, in preparation for the journey from exile back to the Promised Land, calls upon the assembled people to fast so that “we might humble ourselves before our God” (8,21). The Almighty heard their prayer and assured them of His favor and protection. In the same way, the people of Nineveh, responding to Jonah’s call to repentance, proclaimed a fast, as a sign of their sincerity, saying: “Who knows, God may yet repent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we perish not?” (3,9). In this instance, too, God saw their works and spared them. In the New Testament, Jesus brings to light the profound motive for fasting, condemning the attitude of the Pharisees, who scrupulously observed the prescriptions of the law, but whose hearts were far from God. True fasting, as the divine Master repeats elsewhere, is rather to do the will of the Heavenly Father, who “sees in secret, and will reward you” (Mt 6,18). He Himself sets the example, answering Satan, at the end of the forty days spent in the desert that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Mt 4,4). The true fast is thus directed to eating the “true food,” which is to do the Father’s will (cf. Jn 4,34). If, therefore, Adam disobeyed the Lord’s command “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,” the believer, through fasting, intends to submit himself humbly to God, trusting in His goodness and mercy. The practice of fasting is very present in the first Christian community (cf. Acts 13,3; 14,22; 27,21; 2 Cor 6,5). The Church Fathers, too, speak of the force of fasting to bridle sin, especially the lusts of the “old Adam,” and open in the heart of the believer a path to God. Moreover, fasting is a practice that is encountered frequently and recommended by the saints of every age. Saint Peter Chrysologus writes: “Fasting is the soul of prayer, mercy is the lifeblood of fasting. So if you pray, fast; if you fast, show mercy; if you want your petition to be heard, hear the petition of others. If you do not close your ear to others, you open God’s ear to yourself” (Sermo 43: PL 52, 320. 322). In our own day, fasting seems to have lost something of its spiritual meaning, and has taken on, in a culture characterized by the search for material well-being, a therapeutic value for the care of one’s body. Fasting certainly bring benefits to physical well-being, but for believers, it is, in the first place, a “therapy” to heal all that prevents them from conformity to the will of God. In the Apostolic Constitution Pænitemini of 1966, the Servant of God Paul VI saw the need to present fasting within the call of every Christian to “no longer live for himself, but for Him who loves him and gave himself for him … he will also have to live for his brethren“ (cf. Ch. I). Lent could be a propitious time to present again the norms contained in the Apostolic Constitution, so that the authentic and perennial significance of this long held practice may be rediscovered, and thus assist us to mortify our egoism and open our heart to love of God and neighbor, the first and greatest Commandment of the new Law and compendium of the entire Gospel (cf. Mt 22, 34-40). The faithful practice of fasting contributes, moreover, to conferring unity to the whole person, body and soul, helping to avoid sin and grow in intimacy with the Lord. Saint Augustine, who knew all too well his own negative impulses, defining them as “twisted and tangled knottiness” (Confessions, II, 10.18), writes: “I will certainly impose privation, but it is so that he will forgive me, to be pleasing in his eyes, that I may enjoy his delightfulness” (Sermo 400, 3, 3: PL 40, 708). Denying material food, which nourishes our body, nurtures an interior disposition to listen to Christ and be fed by His saving word. Through fasting and praying, we allow Him to come and satisfy the deepest hunger that we experience in the depths of our being: the hunger and thirst for God. At the same time, fasting is an aid to open our eyes to the situation in which so many of our brothers and sisters live. In his First Letter, Saint John admonishes: “If anyone has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, yet shuts up his bowels of compassion from him – how does the love of God abide in him?” (3,17). Voluntary fasting enables us to grow in the spirit of the Good Samaritan, who bends low and goes to the help of his suffering brother (cf. Encyclical Deus caritas est, 15). By freely embracing an act of self-denial for the sake of another, we make a statement that our brother or sister in need is not a stranger. It is precisely to keep alive this welcoming and attentive attitude towards our brothers and sisters that I encourage the parishes and every other community to intensify in Lent the custom of private and communal fasts, joined to the reading of the Word of God, prayer and almsgiving. From the beginning, this has been the hallmark of the Christian community, in which special collections were taken up (cf. 2 Cor 8-9; Rm 15, 25-27), the faithful being invited to give to the poor what had been set aside from their fast (Didascalia Ap., V, 20,18). This practice needs to be rediscovered and encouraged again in our day, especially during the liturgical season of Lent. From what I have said thus far, it seems abundantly clear that fasting represents an important ascetical practice, a spiritual arm to do battle against every possible disordered attachment to ourselves. Freely chosen detachment from the pleasure of food and other material goods helps the disciple of Christ to control the appetites of nature, weakened by original sin, whose negative effects impact the entire human person. Quite opportunely, an ancient hymn of the Lenten liturgy exhorts: “Utamur ergo parcius, / verbis cibis et potibus, / somno, iocis et arctius / perstemus in custodia – Let us use sparingly words, food and drink, sleep and amusements. May we be more alert in the custody of our senses.” Dear brothers and sisters, it is good to see how the ultimate goal of fasting is to help each one of us, as the Servant of God Pope John Paul II wrote, to make the complete gift of self to God (cf. Encyclical Veritatis splendor, 21). May every family and Christian community use well this time of Lent, therefore, in order to cast aside all that distracts the spirit and grow in whatever nourishes the soul, moving it to love of God and neighbor. I am thinking especially of a greater commitment to prayer, lectio divina, recourse to the Sacrament of Reconciliation and active participation in the Eucharist, especially the Holy Sunday Mass. With this interior disposition, let us enter the penitential spirit of Lent. May the Blessed Virgin Mary, Causa nostrae laetitiae, accompany and support us in the effort to free our heart from slavery to sin, making it evermore a “living tabernacle of God.” With these wishes, while assuring every believer and ecclesial community of my prayer for a fruitful Lenten journey, I cordially impart to all of you my Apostolic Blessing. BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

Homosexual Republican Group Calls Pro-Family Activists "Domestic Terrorists"

From LifeSiteNews.com
By Kathleen Gilbert

A homosexualist Republican group is lobbying GOP chairman Michael Steele to turn a deaf ear to pro-family activists, who the group leader labeled in a letter "Anti-American" and "domestic terrorists." James Ensley, President of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), made the comments after the pro-family group, Americans for Truth, petitioned Steele to work to return the GOP to its conservative roots and protect true marriage.

"I want to urge you not to allow small biggoted [sic], anti-American and anti-Christian fringe groups such as Americans for Truth to influence you," wrote Ensley in a letter addressed to Steele.

"Groups like Americans for Truth simply want to divide Americans, and truthfully their group would be more welcome as a mainstream Nazi Germany organization, than an organization which provides any value at all in 21st Century America," Ensley continued.

Ensley said he hoped Steele would support the LCR, a radically homosexualist group, "and not listen to the radical Christian extremist domestic terrorist groups such as Americans for Truth."

Log Cabin had praised Steele's election as chairman of the GOP last month, saying the former Maryland lieutenant governor "believes in a big tent GOP" and "is an inclusive leader who will bring a new energy and a new vision to the GOP at a critical time." Following Log Cabin's endorsement of Steele, Americans for Truth of Homosexuality (AFTAH) petitioned Steele to strengthen the GOP's conservative roots by protecting marriage as between one man and one woman.

WorldNetDaily (WND) reports that the Georgia Republican Party responded to Ensley's inflammatory rhetoric, stating, "While a healthy debate on the issues can help strengthen us as a party, to use the word 'terrorist' to describe those that disagree with you is not appropriate." Georgia GOP spokesman Doug Reineke emphasized that the Log Cabin Republicans were an independent group not officially associated with the Georgia Republican Party.

Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) "really have an anti-Christian animus, an anti-Christian bigotry about them, which would actually stoop to calling us ... terrorists," AFTAH President LaBarbera told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).

"We see the same trend: this Log Cabin group is seated as if it's a hugely important constituency to the GOP, and what I'm trying to tell people is: 'Look, these guys have 20,000 members nationwide - 20,000,'" La Barbera said. "It's a tiny organization that's not worth losing millions and millions of conservatives, pro-life, pro-family Republicans over."

After Californians voted into law Proposition 8, adding to the state constitution the true definition of marriage, LCR sent an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court arguing that the voter-approved amendment should be overturned because it denies a "fundamental right" to same-sex "marriage."

"If you're crusading to overturn the popular will of California voters on defending marriage between a man and a woman - to me, don't call yourself a Republican," LaBarbera told LSN. "That's a radical thing to do - even some gays don't say we should overturn that vote. There's really nothing distinguishing them - when it comes to the hardcore homosexual activism - they're just like the Democratic gay activists. That's what they value most highly. "

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute also condemned Ensley's words, stating: "It appears that James Ensley just came out of his bigot closet, hurling pernicious charges - with no evidence - at not only Mr. LaBarbera but also at countless others who share the view that homosexual behavior is immoral behavior." (See: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34271)

Both AFTAH and the Illinois Family Institute are encouraging followers to urge Steele to oppose the homosexualist agenda.

To contact GOP Chairman Steele:
Email: chairman@gop.com

The Time is Right for a Religious Freedom Day

A state legislator in Hawaii has introduced legislation (HB 1282) to establish the second Saturday in July of each year as "Religious Freedom Day."

Our first reaction to this was to dismiss it as yet another expression of civil religion being promoted for political purposes. Yet as we reflected we recognized, as did the founding fathers, that all the rights and freedoms, indeed our very ideas of what it means to be an American, are rooted not in ethnicity or territory as is true with every other nation, but in the profoundly religious idea "that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

In an excellent book, America's Real War, Rabbi Daniel Lapin provides irrefutable evidence that this nation was founded as a Christian nation where freedom of religion, not freedom from religion is protected. Those freedoms are in danger from a populace that has not been told its true history in the government schools, they are in danger from secularists in national leadership promoting Marxist materialism, and they are threatened from without by Islmamic jihadists determined to eliminate all vestiges of our faith and culture and impose Sharia Law.

In 1954, President Eisenhower heard a sermon delivered by Reverend George M. Docherty that resulted in the words "under God" being added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Concluding his sermon, Docherty stated:

In Jefferson's phrase, if we deny the existence of the God who gave us life, how can we live by the liberty He gave us at the same time? This is a God-fearing nation. On our coins, bearing the imprint of Lincoln and Jefferson, are the words "In God We Trust." Congress is opened with prayer. It is upon the Holy Bible the President takes his oath of office. Naturalized citizens, when they take their oath of allegiance, conclude, solemnly, with the words "so help me God."

This is the issue we face today: A freedom that respects the rights of the minorities, but is defined by a fundamental belief in God. A way of life that sees man, not as the ultimate outcome of a mysterious concatenation of evolutionary process, but a sentient being created by God and seeking to know Him well, and "Whose soul is restless till he rest in God."

In this land, there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free; neither male nor female, for we are one nation indivisible under God, and humbly as God has given us the light we seek liberty and justice for all. This quest is not only within these United States, but to the four corners of the globe, wherever man will lift up his head toward the vision of his true and divine manhood.

If we are to restore respect for the U. S. Constitution, protect America's liberties, and build on the foundations that made our republic great, we must restore a deep respect for the religious roots of our nation. As Rabbi Lapin points out, "either America has no religious roots and no special spiritual destiny, or it has both." Establishing a Religious Freedom Day close to the Fourth of July will be an important reminder that freedom from something is unimportant unless we are truly free for something -- the love of God, our country, its ideals, and our fellow man.

Geert Wilders on Bill O'Reilly

Free speech can be a challenge when being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, but Americans can be proud that Geert Wilders has been welcomed in the United States and his message about the threat of Islamo-Fascism is being heard here.

Hat Tip to Gates of Vienna and Vlad Tepes for the following video.

Pope Names Dolan Archbishop of New York

Time will tell, but it appears that Pope Benedict has made an excellent choice in naming Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan as the new Archbishop of New York. Like Cardinal Egan, he is politically and theologically orthodox, but unlike Egan, he is first and foremost a spiritual shepherd of souls.

The New York Archdiocese, with 2.5 million Catholics, is second to Los Angeles in size. Its territory includes Manhattan, Staten Island, Bronx, and seven counties stretching up the Hudson River to within twenty miles of Albany. However, the Archbishop of New York, presiding over a world cultural, financial and media center, has traditionally wielded national and international influence. Former Archbishops of New York, such as Cardinals Spellman, Cooke and O'Connor, have been the public face of American Catholicism, tangling with the nation's leaders when necessary, and providing spiritual counsel. They have typically been large personalities, seen by New Yorkers of all faiths as fathers of the city.

Unfortunately the incumbent, Cardinal Egan, has seen his role as very much a business manager. Aloof from his priests and people, he has been zealous in closing schools and parishes, streamlining Archdiocesan operations, and restoring financial stability to a system that was tottering after the O'Connor years.

Many New Yorkers will never forget that weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Cardinal Egan left town for a month to preside over a meeting of bishops in Rome. Given that many of the dead police and fire personnel were Catholic, it would be hard to imagine Cardinal O'Connor, or most of New York's previous Archbishops ignoring their pastoral obligations in the aftermath of such a crisis.

The Church in America is confronted as never before with radical national leadership, promoting perverted science, perverted lifestyles, abortion and assaults on faith and the freedom and dignity of the individual. American Catholics need a man who is both grounded in truth and a shepherd of souls, who will boldly teach and sanctify and, when necessary, speak truth to power. If Pope Benedict XVI has appointed a man like himself, America will have a great, new Catholic leader at a time when leadership is sorely needed.

Pepsi Produces Another TV Ad Promoting the Gay Lifestyle

Pepsi has produced another TV ad not only promoting Pepsi but also promoting the gay lifestyle. Click here to see the ad.

Pepsi had released a similar ad before. The ads serve two purposes for Pepsi: to sell Pepsi and to promote the homosexual lifestyle. The American Family Association, which is leading a national boycott, has asked Pepsi to remain neutral in the culture war, but the company refused - choosing to support the homosexual activists.

Pepsi has made no effort to hide their support for the homosexual agenda:

• Pepsi gave a total of $1,000,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the workplace.

• Both HRC and PFLAG supported efforts in California to defeat Proposition 8 which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. HRC, which received $500,000 from Pepsi, gave $2.3 million to defeat Proposition 8.

• Pepsi forces employees to attend sexual orientation and gender diversity training where the employees are taught to accept homosexuality.

• Pepsi is a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

The American Family Association is urging all concerned Americans to take the following action:

Sign the Boycott Pepsi Pledge. After signing the pledge, please call Pepsi (914-253-2000 or 1-800-433-2652) and tell the company you will boycott their products until they stop promoting the homosexual agenda.

Call the Pepsi bottler nearest you and ask it to stop supporting the homosexual agenda.

Pepsi’s products include Pepsi soft drinks, Frito-Lay chips and snacks (800-352-4477), Quaker Oats (800-367-6287), Tropicana (800-237-7799) and Gatorade (800-884-2867).

Print the Boycott Pepsi Pledge and distribute it.

Robin Mark -- "All I Once Held Dear"

George Washington's Farewell Address To The People of the United States

Friends, and Fellow Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it 7 It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this con duct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.