Monday, December 20, 2010

Internet Censors

The following is a list of Senators who voted for the COICA bill. Sold as a bill to prevent piracy, if passed, it is far more likely to be used to censor the internet. The story, as it arrived in my email, apparently comes from at least two sources, Aletho News and the American Post – Gazette.

There are probably many who have inadvertently violated copyright laws. Their sites and blogs might well be shutdown under this law as was done with wikileaks. In fact, possibly every site on the internet that passes on something they read on another site could be shutdown. Since the Book Burning Act of 1978, it isn't even necessary to register a copyright. Just the act of publishing automatically copyrights it. So says a flyer printed by an office supply store and given to people wanting to have copies made of something that may be protected. If you have no proof that what you want copied is in the public domain or that you have permission from the copyright owner, they won't print it unless it was published prior to 1923, hence, the “Book Burning Act.” Of course, the shutting down will likely be selective with those sites that oppose America's Big Brother government comprising the bulk.

According to the email I received, a number of law professors have explained the unconstitutionality of the bill, but it doesn't matter to those pushing it, including a number of Senators who have been denouncing censorship in other countries.

This is the list. Some are repeat offenders having already supported the healthcare obamanation and/or illegal immigration or “liberalized” immigration laws.

* Patrick J. Leahy – Vermont also “healthcare” and defender of illegals or “liberalized” laws

* Herb Kohl – Wisconsin also “healthcare”

* Jeff Sessions - Alabama

* Dianne Feinstein – California also “healthcare”

* Orrin G. Hatch - Utah

* Russ Feingold – Wisconsin also “healthcare” and defender of illegals or “liberalized” laws

* Chuck Grassley - Iowa

* Arlen Specter – Pennsylvania also “healthcare”

* Jon Kyl - Arizona

* Chuck Schumer - New York also “healthcare”

* Lindsey Graham - South Carolina

* Dick Durbin – Illinois also “healthcare”

* John Cornyn - Texas

* Benjamin L. Cardin – Maryland also “healthcare” and defender of illegals or “liberalized” laws

* Tom Coburn - Oklahoma

* Sheldon Whitehouse - Rhode Island also “healthcare”

* Amy Klobuchar – Minnesota also “healthcare”

* Al Franken – Minnesota also “healthcare”

* Chris Coons – Delaware (This is the clown that thinks part of the First Amendment deals with a “separation of church and state.”)

The list came to me with the following comment: “You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like. We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so. First Amendment protections make clear that if you are going to stop any specific speech, it has to be extremely specific speech. This law has no such restrictions. It's really quite unfortunate that these 19 US Senators are the first American politicians to publicly vote in favor of censoring speech in America.”

To be fair, there may be sound reasoning behind the government and its controllers wanting to effectively shutdown the internet. What do you think?

Return to TOC

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Department of Justice -- Part 2

Here's further evidence supporting my contention that the DoJ's extremist list is biased against the white majority. According to an article in the Washington Times on Friday, September 24, 2010 a Federal prosecutor accused the Justice Dept. of reverse racism saying the Civil Rights Division is 'hostile' to 'race-neutral enforcement.' But is it really black bias or just a part of the old Tyrant's game of divide and conquer?

Included with the posting was Video footage showing two men in front of a polling site for the 4th Division of Philadelphia's Ward 14 on Election Day 2008. One was holding a nightstick. Eventually they were asked by police to leave.

“The Justice Department supervisor who recommended pursuing a voter intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party testified Friday that the department's Civil Rights Division has engaged in reverse racism, refusing to bring charges in voting cases unless the victim is a minority” reports the Times.

The Times says Coates was chief of the DoJ's Voting Rights section when the case was brought in 2009. He is now on an 18-month detail with the U.S. Attorney's office in South Carolina.

Naturally, DoJ officials have denied any wrong-doing when they dismissed the case after winning a default judgment, but Mr. Coates differs with Department officials. He is quoted by the Times,
"Based upon my own personal knowledge of the events surrounding the division's actions in the Panther case and the atmosphere that existed and continues to exist in the division and in the voting section against fair enforcement of certain federal voting laws, I do not believe these representations to this commission accurately reflect what occurred in the Panther case and do not reflect the hostile atmosphere that existed within the division for a long time against race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act."

According to the Times, Mr. Coates said this hostility became clear to him while pursuing a 2005 Mississippi case in which white voters were the victims of intimidation. He said some department employees refused to work on the case, which, according to Mr. Coates, also drew criticism from civil rights groups.

Obama's election allowed those most opposed to "race-neutral enforcement" to move into leadership positions against the Civil Rights Division according to Coates. One of those officials, then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, ordered the dismissal of the New Black Panther case.

The Times article revealed that two New Black Panther Party members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets with military insignias intimidated voters with racial slurs and a nightstick. A third-party member was accused of directing their behavior.

The Times tells us, “Since January, Mr. Coates has been working as an assistant U.S. Attorney in South Carolina. He testified Friday that he volunteered for the post when it became [obvious?] Justice officials were stripping him of his authority and he could not effectively do his job as chief of the voting rights section.”

If the Justice Department is going to use the black minority to oppress the white majority, then it appears they are in turn going to use the even smaller Jewish minority to oppress all.

An article by Max Blumenthal in Truthdig dated August 30, 2010 is titled “How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews,”

It exposes “a rabbinical guidebook for killing non-Jews” While the book has generated considerable opposition in Israel, according to Blumenthal it has “exposed the power a bunch of genocidal theocrats wield over the government.”

The book, “Torat Ha'Melech” was described by an Israeli tabloid as "230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew." According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."

[Reminiscent of Holocaust I when the Jews slaughtered Canaanite men, women, and children indiscriminately.]

Blumenthal describes a gathering of “top fundamentalist rabbis” at Jerusalem's Ramada Renaissance hotel saying the rabbis “flaunted their political power.” They said they wouldn't submit to attempts by the government “to regulate their political activities,” especially inciting terrorist attacks against non-Jews. The meeting, says Blumenthal, “degenerated into calls for murdering not just non-Jews, but secular Jews as well.”

"The obligation to sacrifice your life is above all others when fighting those who wish to destroy the authority of the Torah," bellowed Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira, head of the yeshiva in the Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Gan. "It is not only true against non-Jews who are trying to destroy it but against Jewish people from any side."

I find this mind boggling! We are constantly bombarded with condemnations of Muslims who are ready to sacrifice their lives in a holy war against those who do not believe as they do, but this is the first I'd heard of their Israeli counterparts. It appears that not only the DoJ, but our entire government, in collusion with the media, is intent on keeping this their dirty little secret.

Shapira leads the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in Yitzhar controlling a small army of fanatics intent on attacking peaceful Palastinians as they tend their crops and livestock we are told. Despite what Blumenthal calls “its apparent role” training terrorists, Od Yosef Chai has received around $300,000 from the Israeli Ministries of Social Affairs and of Education. I has also received considerable support from an American tax-exempt non-profit called the Central Fund of Israel located inside the Marcus Brothers Textiles store in Manhattan.

Try as I may, I could not find Od Yosef Chai, nor the Central Fund of Israel, nor Marcus Brothers Textiles in the DoJ's list of terrorists and extremist organizations. Must have been an oversight.

Another murderous thug mentioned in the article as a supporter of the book is Dov Lior. We are told he has his own “eliminationist attitude” toward non-Jews. He told soldiers “There is no such thing a civilians in wartime... A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail.

Despite nominal condemnation of the book and its following, the Israeli government obviously does not intend to take any action against the book, its author, or his followers. I can't help but wonder if the book is subtitled, “The Final Solution to the Gentile Question.”

The DoJ tells us that the Protocols were a forgery by the Tsar's Secret Police. Will future generations “learn” that Torat Ha'Melech was a forgery of the Iranian Secret Police?

Max Blumenthal is the author of Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books, 2009) has just been released. Contact him at

I highly recommend reading the entire article. I'm not sure, but it may be necessary to sign up with Truthdig, if so, that may only be necessary to make comments.

Return to TOC

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Dan Onorato

I know little of Dan Onorato, the Democratic candidate for governor of PA, that he hasn't told the people of Pennsylvania in his TV ads. That's enough to label him an enemy of republican principles and, therefore, an enemy of America.

In his ads, Onorato, the Democratic candidate for governor, has announced his intention to reduce state spending by reducing the pay of State representatives and by reducing their numbers. That's the last thing we need. We have too little representation as it is. For the most part, the government is left in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one. This is the goal of Regionalism and was the goal of the Fabians in England as early as the turn of the last century. If Onorato is sincere about reducing the State budget, there is the fertile field. Reduce the numbers, pay, and retirement benefits of these parasites who are not answerable to the citizens of Pennsylvania.

This is not to be construed as an endorsement of his opponent or opponents.

Return To TOC

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Department of Justice

The report of the Department of Justice mentioned by Sally O'Boyle in her letter (see previous post on SPLC) has certainly earned the Department a place among America's Enemies. There is so much drivel in this publication that to try to analyze and comment on the whole thing would take a small book. I've just taken some excerpts to illustrate my contentions regarding the DoJ and its report. For the most part, I've just dealt with the domestic end of it, leaving out the Middle East groups cited. Most of my comments are totally serious, but a few I may have made with tongue partially inserted in cheek because the whole report is so absurd.

“Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism—Terms and Concepts is a publication of the Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice Version 1.0 dated September 2005-2009.”

The report cites the source of funds:

“This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-NC-BX-K002 awarded by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

To me the most interesting thing here is not so much the source, but the number of bureaucracies within the DoJ bureaucracy. If anyone in government is serious about cutting costs, here's a good place to start.

According to the authors, the purpose of this publication is to provide a tool to help criminal justice professionals understand the terms, organizations, and names they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of an [alleged] extremist group.

The following appears to start out as a hedge of some sort, but the example makes no sense at all. “The fact that an entry appears in this publication does not imply a connection to illegal activity. As an example, the location Waco, Texas, appears in the glossary. Investigators may hear reference to this location while working on certain antigovernment cases.” Do “investigators” have to be told that the mention of a city doesn't mean the whole city is connected to illegal activity? What does “certain antigovernment cases” mean? Is opposition to government now a criminal offense? Don't answer that! I think I already know.

Here are the people responsible for this comic book:

“This publication was initially prepared by Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D., in 1998, as a Guide to Common Terms Used by Antigovernment Extremists. Subsequent revisions were expanded to include many terms used by left-wing and international terrorists and special-interest/single-issue extremists. The following individuals have contributed to this Guide: Pete Haskel, Ted Burton, Ralph Brock, Ed Higgins, Suzanne James, Chris Walker, Christine Nordstrom, Walter Wallmark, Bonnie Bergey, Darren Mulloy, Gregory Rosen, Patricia Henshall, George Richards, Michael Reynolds, Brad Whitsel, Ed King, Jerry Kling, Jon Drummond, Jack Plaxe, Richard Holden, Jonathan White, Richard Marquise, David Carter, Charles Tilby, Gary Clyman, Robert Harris, and William Dyson, Jr.”

I first thought that the people above belonged individually in americasenemies, but the more I read the more I think they belong in a school for the intellectually challenged.

“Terrorism and the extremist movement are dynamic and continually changing.”

I chose this sentence to illustrate the tone of the “report.” Throughout terrorism and extremism are closely connected and usually connected to “right-wing” organizations and causes, but “left-wing” organizations are seldom listed as extremist. Left-wing terrorists and anti-Constitutional government extremists are usually called “activists.”

One of the first things “law enforcement agencies” are cautioned against is the “Affinity Group.” This publication defines “Affinity Group” in this way: “a small band of individuals who work clandestinely as a team to perpetrate direct attacks on a targeted enemy.” The small band description is critical here. I guess it permits the federal government, with its targeted attacks on our Constitution, our national sovereignty, and the American people, to avoid arrest by local law enforcement agencies.

Other organizations, movements, and ideas that investigators and prosecuters should be aware of include:

Antiabortion Movement- while pointing out that some who hold this position have assassinated abortion physicians and their employees in the United States, nowhere do the authors mention the extremists of the Abortion Movement that have slaughtered countless unborn or partially born infants while developing a cadre of physicians hardened to the taking of human life. Doctor Mengele I presume?

“Antiauthoritarian: A political position in opposition to capitalism and government control, corporation or group, and supportive of decentralization and autonomy; generally, a libertarian position that is sometimes equated with anarchy.”

I'm not sure just what law enforcement officials are suppose to get from this rather fractured definition of “antiauthoritarian” other than a conclusion that the grant to this organization must have required it to hire the mentally handicapped and the hardcore unemployed to do the writing.

For the record, my dictionary defines authoritarian as: “believing in, relating to, or characterized by unquestioning obedience to authority rather than individual freedom of judgment and action.” Clearly the authoritarian government of the United States must keep a close watch on anti-authoritarian “extremists.”

“Anti-Defamation League (ADL): A Jewish organization founded in 1913, devoted to fighting hate crimes. Its mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike.” The ADL is one of the largest (and most aggressive) groups opposing right-wing extremism.”

Typical of the slant of this DoJ publication, minority racist and bigoted groups are condoned or even praised but majorities who might hold such views are worthy of DoJ investigation. Could it be that minorities, or a pretext of “minority rights,” are being used as an excuse to suppress the majority? I can't help but wonder what “most aggressive” means as applied to the ADL. I also wonder how the Jewish militia known as the JDL escaped mention in the “report.”

“Anti-Shyster: A magazine published in Texas by Alfred Adask, an advocate of the sovereign citizen ideology. The ire of the magazine is directed largely at the legal/judicial system.”

Anti-Shyster magazine and its publisher get mention for attacking the legal/judicial system. If this publication, under the auspices of the Department of Justice, is an example of our legal/judicial system, then Anti-Shyster is likely well justified in its attacks.

“Bilderbergers (Bilderberg Group): Along with the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the three groups targeted by right-wing extremists for conspiring to dominate the world.”

Notice the use of the highly inflammatory “targeted” and, of course, the usual “right-wing extremists.” I wonder how many people on the “left” who have attacked these organizations for their major role in corporate control of America and the world are surprised to learn they are “right-wing extremists.”

“Christian Identity: A hate-filled religious sect descended from British-Israelism that has come to dominate much of the leadership of the extreme right in the United States today. The key belief of Identity adherents is that people of white European descent are actually the descendants of the ancient Israelites of the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is a message written expressly for whites, who are “'God’s chosen people.'”

I found this interesting for several reasons. Firstly, I know nothing of this “Christian Identity,” but the “hate-filled” epithet reminded me again of the movie “Revelation” that I mentioned in the post on SPLC and the term “haters” as applied to all who opposed the Devil's One Nation Earth. Just a coincidence?

Secondly, the reference to “British-Israelism” intrigued me. I used to follow the machinations of BI when Herbert Armstrong and the World Wide Church of God was its front. I was predicting the give-away of the Panama Canal when some were still holding out hope that we would keep it. According to biblical prophecy as interpreted by BI, the enemies would control the gates of Israel's (British) cities. Metaphorically, the canal was one of those gates. It had to go. When Armstrong died, BI left the church. I saw a manifestation of it about 10 to 15 years ago in the “Center for Constitutional Studies.” It often moves from one cover to another.

The earliest reference I've seen to BI was in a biography of Washington written shortly after his death. In the appendix was a letter from the former governor of Massachusetts to George III assuring his “majesty” that he still reigned supreme over his kingdom, British-Israel. To fulfill their interpretation of prophecy, one “tribe” had to become a “great nation” (the U.S.) and the other a “nation of nations” (the British Empire). To me, this letter was saying, “Pay no attention to surface appearances. We're still in charge here.”

Regardless of who might be running America, for many years I've believed the one hope for defeat of the globalist Inter-Nazis is their self-destruction from within. It's a hope that, when they see their world government pie coming out of the oven, the many groups who have been promised at least a slice if not the whole pie, will come out of their counting houses and corporate bakeries to try to claim a bigger slice. It's my hope that the infighting will finally expose them to those who, until now, have refused to understand, and they will all be brought down. This report could be the first salvo of the Zionist faction, possibly entrenched in the DoJ, against the BI faction.

“Christian Patriots: A term used, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, to describe people sympathetic to right-wing ideology.”

Wow! Three dirty words in one brief description – “Christian,” “Patriots,” and “right-wing.” Someone's going to censor the Department of Justice.

“Christian Reconstructionism: A theology common among many in the “patriot” movement. It essentially argues that biblical law should be the basis for reconstructing earthly societies—in other words, it espouses an essentially theocratic government.”

No argument! These people must be stopped! They would substitute belief in an Almighty God. Such an extreme belief would weaken the power of God, the Almighty State. It would undermine the First Commandment, I am the Lord Thy State, Thou shalt have no other gods. Also the Second, Thou shalt obey! They would replace them with antiquated, theocratic commandments like: Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not kill. The latter alone could cripple the abortion industry and create a hardship for the doctors and nurses who would have to learn life saving skills to replace their life taking training and conditioning.

“Civil Rights Task Force (CRTF): A “patriot” group headquartered in California (with members in many states) that primarily impersonates law enforcement. CRTF sells nylon jackets (with “Civil Rights Task Force” printed on the back, (just as law enforcement agencies have jackets with their names on the back), gold badges, business cards, and other paraphernalia.”

Other extremist groups also put their names on the backs of jackets just like law enforcement agencies. Some examples: Denver Broncos, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Flyers, Boston Celtics, and many others. May we assume they'll be included in the big DoJ roundup?

“Constitution Party: A minor, right-wing extremist political party, formerly known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party (USTP), which is one of the primary parties that specifically try to appeal to the 'patriot' movement.”

This is just one of the many examples of the “left-wing.” statist bias of the writers of this pathetic joke. “Right-wing” is almost always accompanied by “extremists” and patriots is almost always enclosed in quotation marks. Contrast that with the handling of “left-wing” oriented groups who are generally called “activists” even when they resort to terrorism as do some of the environmental groups mentioned. I think they might have called them terrorists in one or two cases.

To avoid misunderstanding, I'd like to make it clear that I believe the left vs. right Itchy and Scratchy Show is applied Hegelian Dialectic.

“New World Order: A term used by conspiracy theorists to refer to a global conspiracy designed to implement worldwide socialism.”

Would the DoJ's definition of “conspiracy theorists” include Congresswoman Marjorie Holt? 

Hon . Marjorie S. Holt of Maryland, in the House of Representatives on Monday, Jan. 19, 1976 :

"Mr. Speaker, many of us recently received a letter from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, inviting Members of Congress to participate in a ceremonial signing of a "Declaration of Interdependence" on January 30 in Congress Hall, adjacent to Independence Hall in Philadelphia. A number of Members of Congress have been invited to sign this document, lending their prestige to its theme, but I want the record to show my strong opposition to this declaration. It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a 'new world order' that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.

I post this comment made by Congresswoman Holt regarding the proposal of a “Declaration of Independence” to show that the “New World Order” is not “theory,” it is fact. Pushers of this “New World Order” knew full well that the American people and, for that matter, all of the peoples of the developed world would never accept a government that would “redistribute” their wealth to the undevelped countries of the world (minus 20 or 30% for handling). That's the reason for the de-industrialization of our countries and the reduction of our standards of living over a number of decades. The pushers are taking everything we have in advance so we'll have nothing to lose if we accept the world government they propose.

“Wise Use: A term used to refer to a loose collection of antienvironment and property rights groups that oppose government regulation of natural resources and absolute property rights.”

Did you know that groups opposed to the great government land and resources grabs are “antienvironment?”

Zionist: Generally speaking, a term used to refer to the Jewish movement earlier this century to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine or to refer to pro-Israeli groups or organizations today (i.e., Zionist Organization of America). The term is used by many white supremacists to refer to all or any Jews, often in reference to “Jewish conspiracies.”

Disregarding the DoJ's usual anti-white or anti-Christian slurs, what I find interesting is the apparent acceptance of racial separation when sought by the Jews in a “Jewish homeland.”

“New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense: Established by Khallid Adbul Muhammad around 1996 to resurrect the original Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, the New Panthers claim to have 80 chapters across the country, including in the areas of New York, Houston, and Washington, DC. They have shown their resolve by marching with weapons in plain sight in Jasper, Texas (following the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr., in 1998) and at the Texas State Prison in Huntsville, Texas, in 2000 to protest the impending execution of a black man. They continue to organize demonstrations that have been criticized for their racial and anti-Semitic tone.”

By “marching with weapons in plain sight” the DoJ thinks these black racist thugs merely showed “their resolve.” But that's OK. Remember, minorities are permitted a lot of leeway when being used to suppress the rights of the majority. But, that's just my opinion. Well! Maybe not just mine!

Given all of the absurdities and non-sequiters in this publication, doesn't it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know your tax dollars paid for it?

The complete report in PDF can be downloaded at the site below.

Return to TOC

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Southern Poverty Law Center

An internet friend sent me a copy of this letter in an email. It has prompted me to list both the racist Southern Poverty Law Center and the anti-American Department of Justice as America's Enemies. I'm naming the SPLC as our enemy in this post and the DoJ in the next which I hope to publish within the next couple of days.

The letter:

Dear Southern Poverty Law Center and Department of Justice
Sally O’Boyle
Activist Post
August 30, 2010
Re: SPLC list of “Active Patriot Groups” and DOJ’s “Criminal Extremist List”

I am wondering if you will start a Patriot Persons list to go along with your Patriot Groups list? If so, I’d like to apply. If your criteria* is the same for People as for Groups, I might be a pretty good fit!

I am definitely against any “New World Order” or “One World Government” scheme. The U.S. must remain a sovereign nation as outlined in our Constitution. (Besides, and I don’t mean to be catty here, but the idea doesn’t seem to be working out so bloody well for the EU.) Do you know if there is an active attempt by the U.S. government to join into a world government? If so, please let me know! I’d like to sign and circulate a petition against that.[1]

I don’t engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing; all the conspiracies about which I theorize have grounds. Do you think you could make an exception? And which conspiracies are the groundless ones? A list somewhere on your site would be helpful.

Also, how do you define “extreme anti-government doctrines”, please? Can you give any examples? I am personally extremely pro-Constitutional governance, something which has been in short supply during the last few administrations, including the current one. I would only be anti-government about a government that was extremely anti-U.S. Constitution. Will this count for or against me?

I am glad to see Oath-Keepers made the list of Patriot Groups! I am a member of Oath-Keepers. They are educating military and law-enforcement personnel about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, encouraging them to keep their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Thank goodness! Since the Constitution is no longer adequately taught in our schools (having just educated two teenagers, I can attest to that fact), I am thrilled to see that someone has taken on this monumental task!

Could you let me know if I make the list? You can find me at Campaign for Liberty or at

I hope I’m not asking too much, but maybe you could give a plaque or something? Or how about a pin that we could wear all the time identifying us as Patriots who made your list? Then we could easily spot each other. That would be way cool. Thanks!

God bless,
Sally O’Boyle

P.S. Thanks for printing that list of Patriot Groups broken out by state. Now I can find friends no matter where I am. Kind of like an A.A. meeting list! Now, I’m thinking I should join a militia. Don’t mean to be greedy, but would I get extra points for that?

*Criteria: “Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.” (

[1] – Sally was obviously playing dumb here. I'm certain she knows full well that “our” government is in full cooperation with the globalist gangsters who are bringing about this “One World Government” of them, by them, and for them. Anyone who doesn't know this yet should take a look at the map and plan developed and published in 1941-42. You can find it in the post "New World Order -- Death of America" in:
The map and plan are also available at the Library of Congress and the University of San Diego. The URLs can be found in the blog.
Not all has been realized, some has probably changed, but what is amazing is how much has been achieved of the grandiose plan to enslave the world and how much is falling into place now.

Here's a synopsis of the SPLC's “Intelligence Report.” The spirit of Senator Joe McCarthy is alive and well and residing in the Southern Poverty Law Center. The only thing missing is McCarthy's patriotism, but then, his patriotism is probably the primary reason he has been criticized so viciously by the SPLC's ilk. One thing is certain. We don't need the Gestapo or KGB when we have the SPLC and the DoJ.

This is the introduction to the SPLC's “Intelligence” Report:

Intelligence Report, Spring 2010, Issue Number: 137
Active 'Patriot' Groups in the United States in 2009
Stand Strong against hate [What a noble sentiment. It reminds me of the movie, “Revelation.” In it the Devil has set up a world government One Nation Earth (O.N.E.) and billed himself as the Mesiah. The hero of the movie, a counter terrorist agent (from the DoJ?), is investigating a “terrorist” group that is resisting the O.N.E. The group of God fearing Christians is referred to as the “Haters” for resisting the “Messiah” and is marked for extermination. I guess movies aren't always an escape from reality.]

The introduction continues:

The Intelligence Project identified 512 "Patriot" groups that were active in 2009. Of these groups, 127 were militias, marked with an asterisk, and the remainder includes "common-law" courts, publishers, ministries and citizens' groups. Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the "New World Order," engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist. The list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports. Groups are identified by the city, county or region where they are located.

[I want to make it clear that the listing of the SPLC and the DoJ in americasenemies does not imply that all members of these organizations advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, are racist, traitors, or Devil worshippers.]

Anyone wanting to see the list will find it at the url given by Sally.

Out of curiosity I did some fooling around with the numbers to see what might be learned.

The 512 figure is a bit overly optimistic. It's probably intended to terrify their cowering “left-wing” followers into some sort of action to chase the Pro-Americans they fear might be hiding under their beds. Many are groups with chapters or branches in a number of towns or counties within a state. They probably should be listed as one for the entire state. In some cases the SPLC does that. It will list the group as statewide, so a statewide group will only show once for the state but one with branches in six or seven counties will count on the “intelligence” report as six or seven groups. So the whole “intelligence” report is distorted and not very intelligent.

Even the “statewides” distort the figures. I found the following listed in most cases as statewide:

I counted 64 “third” parties, but 49 were the Constitution Party or affiliates in that number of States.
There were America First Party organizations in 12 states.

Realistically speaking, that 61 is only two groups.

Again, Oath-Keepers (49 States), We the People (48 States), the John Birch Society (36 States), and We Are Change (33 States) are probably, for all intent and purpose, just four groups. The SPLC counts them as 166. Seeing 166 where there are only four sounds paranoid to me.

I do think some sort of awards or recognition should be given to those States exhibiting the greatest loyalty to the principles on which this country was founded.

Using the numbers given by the SPLC, the following States have the greatest number of patriotic groups:

Texas 52
Michigan 47
California 22
Indiana 21
New York 17

These top five should receive a medal of some sort.

To be fair to some States with small populations, I think patriot awards should also be issued based on groups per million population given a minimum population of 1.5 million. Population figures I have would make these States the top five:

State Groups/M
Idaho 7.33
Michigan 4.70
Nebraska 3.89
Oregon 3.68
Utah 3.57

Michigan took second in both catagories. In the second, only Idaho, which barely qualified with 1.5M to Michigan's 10M, was ahead. In addition, Michigan led the field with 11 militia groups including one with a presence in 20 counties. I think, all things considered, Michigan deserves the title: “The American State.”

Return to TOC

Saturday, September 18, 2010

More Enemies In Congress

Below is an article by Roy Beck exposing Senators and Representatives who have consistently voted against attempts to control immigration, legal and illegal. For their efforts Beck calls them “Deserters of Jobless Americans.” In my opinion he's too nice. These immigrants, especially from Mexico, will form a fifth column to facilitate merger with Mexico into the North American Union. For this reason I believe the actions of these people in Congress are an attack on our sovereignty and are therefore treasonous.

DEFENDERS & DESERTERS of JOBLESS AMERICANS: We name the '50 Worst Deserters' Today

By Roy Beck, Friday, September 3, 2010, 1:47 AM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA

It was a tough job to pick the 50 Members of Congress who over the last two years have shown the most callous indifference to the suffering of unemployed American households, in terms of immigration policies.

As bad as Congress has been on immigration in the past, it seemed to just grow more fond of foreign labor the last two years as jobs prospects for unemployed Americans grew more and more dismal.

Consider the results of NumbersUSA calculating grades based on every vote and co-sponsorship of the last two years:

· 42% of the 535 Members earned a NumbersUSA grade of D+ or LOWER for their actions
· 25% earned an F or F-minus, with most of them getting a 0%.

During the last two years of a virtual jobs depression, these Worst 50 led Congress:

· in allowing the addition of another 75,000 permanent working-age immigrants every MONTH
· and in allowing about 7 million illegal foreign workers to keep their jobs in construction, service, manufacturing and transportation.

Recent government data show that 22 million U.S. workers who want a job can’t find one. But these 50 Members of Congress deserted those Americans in favor of increasing the number of foreign workers competing with them in the hiring line.

All 50 “Deserters” on this list:

· received grades of F-minus and 0%, failing to take a single action to reduce competition for jobless Americans.
· are asking voters to re-elect them to Congress this November
· are in the Senate or in the House where they are leaders with special opportunity to influence policy toward jobless Americans because they either are congressional chairmen, leaders of their Party or on the Judiciary Committee with direct jurisdiction over immigration.
It isn't that these 50 don't have concerns for the unemployed. In fact, most of them have worked hard to provide unemployment benefits and other government assistance to help them while they are out of work.

But they seem to prefer providing unemployment assistance to providing them access to jobs.
When it comes to immigration, these 50 are willing to keep their unemployed constituents out of work.

For whatever variety of reasons, these 50 elected officials favor foreign workers and the employers that hire them over the desires of their own constituents to have a job and support themselves.

I'm sure all of these 50 will be campaigning this fall about their great concern for putting their constituents back to work. Citizens can no longer allow them to perpetuate their charade.

50 WORST DESERTERS of JOBLESS AMERICANS (In the Face of Unfair Foreign-Worker Competition)

In the Senate
· Bennet, Michael (CO)
· Feingold, Russell (WI)
· Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY)
· Inouye, Daniel (HI)
· Leahy, Patrick (VT)
· Mikulski, Barbara (MD)
· Reid, Harry (NV)

In the House
· Ackerman, Gary (NY 05th)
· Baldwin, Tammy (WI - 02nd)
· Becerra, Xavier (CA - 31st)
· Berman, Howard (CA - 28th)
· Chu, Judy (CA - 32nd)
· Clarke, Yvette (NY - 11th)
· Clyburn, James (SC - 06th)
· Conyers, John (MI - 14th)
· Cummings, Elijah (MD - 07th)
· Engel, Eliot (NY - 17th)
· Grijalva, Raul (AZ - 07th)
· Gutierrez, Luis (IL - 04th)
· Hastings, Alcee (FL - 23rd)
· Hoyer, Steny (MD - 05th)
· Jackson-Lee, Sheila (TX - 18th)
· Johnson, Hank (GA - 04th)
· Kucinich, Dennis (OH - 10th)
· Lewis, John (GA - 05th)
· Lofgren, Zoe (CA - 16th)
· Markey, Edward (MA - 07th)
· McDermott, Jim (WA 07th)
· Nadler, Jerrold (NY - 08th)
· Napolitano, Grace (CA - 38th)
· Olver, John (MA - 01st)
· Quigley, Mike (IL - 05th)
· Pelosi, Nancy (CA - 8th)
· Rahall, Nick (WV - 03rd)
· Rangel, Charles (NY - 15th)
· Rush, Bobby (IL - 01st)
· Sanchez, Linda (CA - 39th)
· Schakowsky, Janice (IL - 09th)
· Scott, Robert (VA - 03rd)
· Serrano, Jose (NY - 16th)
· Slaughter, Louise (NY - 28th)
· Stark, Pete (CA - 13th)
· Thompson, Bennie (MS - 02nd)
· Towns, Edolphus (NY - 10th)
· Velazquez, Nidia (NY - 12th)
· Tsongas, Niki (MA - 05th)
· Wasserman-Schultz, Debbie (FL - 20th)
· Watt, Melvin (NC - 12th)
· Waxman, Henry (CA - 30th)
· Woolsey, Lynn (CA - 06th)

NumbersUSA is aggressively non-partisan. We do not cherry-pick actions to grade in order to skew the results. Instead, we rate every action in committee or the floor and all co-sponsorships that would change the numerical level of immigration. Our grades reflect the cumulative effect of each Members' actions in terms of increasing or reducing the number of foreign workers (legal and illegal) in the country.

All actions and the computerized grading calculations are displayed in our section of our website.

Those in Congress who do the most to protect American workers in terms of immigration policies receive an A+, while those doing the least receive an F-minus.

NumbersUSA has more than one million activist members. It was formed in 1996 in part to carry out the recommendations of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Barbara Jordan) which opposed immigration policies that depress wages and job prospects for the most vulnerable Americans.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.

Return to TOC

Friday, September 10, 2010

Barack Obama

The following is taken verbatim from Stephen Lendman's blog. I have found Mr. Lendman to be generally reliable and have no reason to doubt this post other than the fact I'm unfamiliar with the London Independent. I am familiar with what Mr. Lendman calls “US corporate media and have found it difficult to catch them in a truth on any major issue. I should clarify that by saying, I do not classify half-truths, omissions, and/or distortions as truths.

One thing that has been reported recently and which I don't understand is the pool of oil supposedly lying at the bottom of the Gulf. No matter how many times I put oil in a bucket and attempt to cover it with water, the oil rises to the top. The only explanation I can think of as to why the Gulf oil would sink is that the chemical "dispersants" combined with the oil in such a way as to make it, not disperse, but become heavy enough to sink. Out of sight. Out of mind. “Mission Accomplished!”

Mr. Lendman's blog:

Monday, August 16, 2010
Obama's Gulf Swim Was Fake

Obama's Gulf Swim Was Fake - by Stephen Lendman

On August 15, AP reported that Obama gave his "personal assurances of (the) Gulf's safety," saying:

"Beaches all along the Gulf Coast are clean, they are safe, and they are open for business."

He lied.

The same day, Britain's government owned BBC reported:

"Barack Obama has taken a swim in the Gulf of Mexico (to) reassure Americans that the waters are safe despite the recent oil spill."

US corporate media reporters repeated the message, CNN's senior White House correspondent Ed Henry among them, saying "Obama takes (the) plunge, swims in the Gulf (to show it's safe and) open for business."

In fact, area businesses continue to be severely impacted, and the entire region is dangerously unsafe.

As for Obama's swim, on August 16, the London Independent reported that Obama and his daughter, Sasha, swam in a private Panama City Beach, FL beach off Alligator Point in St. Andrew Bay, not part of the Gulf.

Reporters were banned, no TV video permitted. "So....only the White House photographer was allowed to capture proceedings. The official picture was intended to provide evidence that the region's beaches are back to normal."

False. A dangerously toxic oil/dispersant brew contaminates much, perhaps the entire Gulf. It's poisoned and potentially lethal for decades, maybe generations. Nothing in it should be ingested. Millions in the region are at risk. No one should swim in coastal waters or eat any Gulf seafood. Responsible officials should ban it. Instead the all-clear's been given.

Obama, his officials, and BP executives are criminally liable. So are state governors, coastal mayors, and regional health authorities.

Area residents with children should leave. Tourists should avoid the region. A growing catastrophe will continue for decades, including a silent epidemic of cancers and other diseases, as well as lives and livelihoods lost.

That's the major media's unreported reality, worsening, not improving daily.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

posted by Steve Lendman @ 4:37 AM

This whole thing stinks, not just of crude oil, but of a massive corporate coverup perpetrated with the cooperation of the puppet in the White House. If the Independent's account is true, and if Mr. Lendman's assessment of the dangers to present and future generations is accurate, then in the long term Obama, through his deception, might well earn a place among the most notorious mass murderers of our age.

Return to TOC

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Early Lives of Some of Our Enemies

The following video from mike the mime reveals an episode from the early lives of some of our enemies. It has been removed from U-tube so I'd suggest copying it if you can.

If anyone knows of similar videos about our enemies in the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Carter administrations I'd appreciate it if you let me know. Maybe you can paste the link in the comments section.

The link below has been disconnected. Word probably got back to Washington.

This is the video that was at the former site.

Return to TOC

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Racist NAACP

It wasn’t racism when blacks turned out in record numbers to vote for Obama because he was black, but it is racism for Americans to attack Obama for the Hitler like tactics he uses to ram his projects through over the heads of the people. At least that's what the NAACP is crying.

According to the news streaming across the bottom of the Fox News broadcast this morning, the NAACP has cited signs or banners being carried by Tea Party protesters depicting Obama as Hitler or the Joker. Characteristically, the NAACP, being the biggest racist organization in the country, is screaming racism. I have to wonder what it was when Bush was the brunt of derogatory cartoons and the Hitler name was being hurled at him. Why wasn’t it racism when such tactics are used against a white president? I think it’s obvious. The NAACP, like Obama, is an enemy of the Republic. They reject Republican principles of majority rule for minority rule of highly vocal thugs – themselves. They reject Freedom of Speech for others while demanding it for themselves.

I suspect it was this same rejection of Republican principles in favor of the “Leadership Principle” (Das Fuehrer Prinzip) by Obama and the Congressional lackeys who line up behind him that earned Obama the comparison with Hitler. I don’t know what brought on the Joker idea. Obama is a lot more dangerous than the Joker.

I will admit I don’t like the comparison of Obama to Hitler any more than I liked the comparison of Bush to the man. It should be remembered, for all the faults he may have had, Hitler was a war hero. An Austrian, he fought for his adopted Germany in WWI and was highly decorated. We know Bush dodged combat with Daddy’s help so there's no justification for comparison there. Exactly what did Obama do to be compared to a war hero. True, like Bush he has the courage to send others out to kill and die. But then, it may be unfair to ask Obama to serve. After all, he might have to produce a birth certificate.

Again, I think this attack on the Tea Party has earned the NAACP the designation “America’s Enemy.”

Return to TOC

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

A Note of Appreciation

I received this in an email with reference to the blog it came from. I brazenly stole it because I think it's something that should be posted in as many places as possible. Of course, it's a work of fiction but very much based on fact. These people are, as I have said before, not only America's enemies by the enemies of all the peoples of the world. I'll be adding the site to my blog list. I recommend it.

Let’s be honest: you’ll never win the lottery.

On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you’ll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That’s because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let’s face it — you’re a member of the working caste. Sorry!

As a result, you don’t have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you’d probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That’s why we’re so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about “justice” and “equal opportunity” in America.

Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there’s never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it’s already occupied by us — and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there’s usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.

Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged like us, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight our wars for us, or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian corporate institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work!

You also probably don’t have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth, power, and prestige that we have. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you’re also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to “break out of the mold”.

Naturally, we try to play you off against each other whenever it suits our purposes: high-waged workers against low-waged, unionized against non-unionized, Black against White, male against female, democrat against republican, American workers against Japanese against Mexican against…. We continually push your wages down and take your money by invoking “foreign competition,” “the law of supply and demand,” “national security,” “too big to fail” or “the bloated federal deficit.” We throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize our profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of our daily economic blackmail, we allow you to participate in our stage-managed electoral shell games, better known to you ordinary folks as “elections.” Happily, you haven’t a clue as to what’s really happening — instead, you blame “Aliens,” “Tree-hugging Environmentalists,” “Niggers,” “Homos”, “Wet backs”, “Welfare Queens,” and countless others for your troubled situation.

We’re also very pleased that many of you still embrace the “work ethic,” even though most jobs in our economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. We obviously don’t know much about work, but we’re sure glad you do!

Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from our domination. But you don’t know that. In fact, you can’t even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that’s probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system — robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.

So we’d truly like to thank you from the bottom of our heartless hearts. Your loyal sacrifice makes possible our corrupt luxury; your work makes our system work. Our governmental, public education, media mind-control, and financial institutions frame a labyrinthine system of lies that you numbingly support for our advancement and your children’s enslavement.

Thanks so much for “knowing your place” — without even knowing it!

Return to TOC

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Nothing Changes

As I near the close of my life I often reflect at how nothing really changes in politics despite the fact that nearly every politician has recognized the discontent of the people and has promised change. When the election is over, nothing changes, at least that's how it has been for the fifty years or so that I have been following politics. Any “changes” that have taken place have been acceleration of the program to destroy the liberty and well-being of the American people and, in fact, of the peoples of the world.

Yesterday, I was looking over the small collection of the presidential papers of William Henry Harrison. I was surprised, although I probably shouldn't have been, to see that, not only have empty promises been the dominant characteristic of politics in my brief time, but that this hasn't changed in over 2000 years.

Below is the Inaugural Address of Harrison in which he notes that even in Ancient Rome, what politicians did after the election did not conform to promises made before the election. He further notes that the practice continued in his own times.

Harrison leaves it to the people to judge whether he kept his promises or should be “classed
with the mass of those who promised that they might deceive and flattered with the intention to betray.”

Unfortunately, the people never had that opportunity. Harrison was inaugurated on March 4, 1841 and died on April 4, one month after taking office.

I was only going to publish the first few paragraphs, those that had gotten my attention, and, maybe, a condensation. I decided instead to publish the entire address and let any who might be inclined to read it make their own judgment as to the sincerity of Harrison and whether he deserved to be separated from the dirt that has muddied American politics, government, and even our lives for the past century or more and have had such an adverse effect on the entire world.


Called from a retirement which I had supposed was to continue for the residue of my life to fill the chief executive office of this great and free nation, I appear before you, fellow-citizens, to take the oaths which the Constitution prescribes as a necessary qualification for the performance of its duties; and in obedience to a custom coeval with our Government and what I believe to be your expectations I proceed to present to you a summary of the principles which will govern me in the discharge of the duties which I shall be called upon to perform.

It was the remark of a Roman consul in an early period of that celebrated Republic that a most striking contrast was observable in the conduct of candidates for offices of power and trust before and after obtaining them, they seldom carrying out in the latter case the pledges and promises made in the former. However much the world may have improved in many respects in the lapse of upward of two thousand years since the remark was made by the virtuous and indignant Roman, I fear that a strict examination of the annals of some of the modern elective governments would develop similar instances of violated confidence.

Although the fiat of the people has gone forth proclaiming me the Chief Magistrate of this glorious Union, nothing upon their part remaining to be done, it may be thought that a motive may exist to keep up the delusion under which they may be supposed to have acted in relation to my principles and opinions; and perhaps there may be some in this assembly who have come here either prepared to condemn those I shall now deliver, or, approving them, to doubt the sincerity with which they are now uttered. But the lapse of a few months will confirm or dispel their fears. The outline of principles to govern and measures to be adopted by an Administration not yet begun will soon be exchanged for immutable history, and I shall stand either exonerated by my countrymen or classed with the mass of those who promised that they might deceive and flattered with the intention to betray. However strong may be my present purpose to realize the expectations of a magnanimous and confiding people, I too well understand the dangerous temptations to which I shall be exposed from the magnitude of the power which it has been the pleasure of the people to commit to my hands not to place my chief confidence upon the aid of that Almighty Power which has hitherto protected me and enabled me to bring to favorable issues other important but still greatly inferior trusts heretofore confided to me by my country.

The broad foundation upon which our Constitution rests being the people--a breath of theirs having made, as a breath can unmake, change, or modify it--it can be assigned to none of the great divisions of government but to that of democracy. If such is its theory, those who are called upon to administer it must recognize as its leading principle the duty of shaping their measures so as to produce the greatest good to the greatest number. But with these broad admissions, if we would compare the sovereignty acknowledged to exist in the mass of our people with the power claimed by other sovereignties, even by those which have been considered most purely democratic, we shall find a most essential difference. All others lay claim to power limited only by their own will. The majority of our citizens, on the contrary, possess a sovereignty with an amount of power precisely equal to that which has been granted to them by the parties to the national compact, and nothing beyond. We admit of no government by divine right, believing that so far as power is concerned the Beneficent Creator has made no distinction amongst men; that all are upon an equality, and that the only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed. The Constitution of the United States is the instrument containing this grant of power to the several departments composing the Government. On an examination of that instrument it will be found to contain declarations of power granted and of power withheld. The latter is also susceptible of division into power which the majority had the right to grant, but which they did not think proper to intrust to their agents, and that which they could not have granted, not being possessed by themselves. In other words, there are certain rights possessed by each individual American citizen which in his compact with the others he has never surrendered. Some of them, indeed, he is unable to surrender, being, in the language of our system, unalienable. The boasted privilege of a Roman citizen was to him a shield only against a petty provincial ruler, whilst the proud democrat of Athens would console himself under a sentence of death for a supposed violation of the national faith--which no one understood and which at times was the subject of the mockery of all--or the banishment from his home, his family, and his country with or without an alleged cause, that it was the act not of a single tyrant or hated aristocracy, but of his assembled countrymen. Far different is the power of our sovereignty. It can interfere with no one's faith, prescribe forms of worship for no one's observance, inflict no punishment but after well-ascertained guilt, the result of investigation under rules prescribed by the Constitution itself. These precious privileges, and those scarcely less important of giving expression to his thoughts and opinions, either by writing or speaking, unrestrained but by the liability for injury to others, and that of a full participation in all the advantages which flow from the Government, the acknowledged property of all, the American citizen derives from no charter granted by his fellow-man. He claims them because he is himself a man, fashioned by the same Almighty hand as the rest of his species and entitled to a full share of the blessings with which He has endowed them. Notwithstanding the limited sovereignty possessed by the people of the United States and the restricted grant of power to the Government which they have adopted, enough has been given to accomplish all the objects for which it was created. It has been found powerful in war, and hitherto justice has been administered, an intimate union effected, domestic tranquillity preserved, and personal liberty secured to the citizen. As was to be expected, however, from the defect of language and the necessarily sententious manner in which the Constitution is written, disputes have arisen as to the amount of power which it has actually granted or was intended to grant.

This is more particularly the case in relation to that part of the instrument which treats of the legislative branch, and not only as regards the exercise of powers claimed under a general clause giving that body the authority to pass all laws necessary to carry into effect the specified powers, but in relation to the latter also. It is, however, consolatory to reflect that _most_ of the instances ofalleged departure from the letter or spirit of the Constitution have ultimately received the sanction of a majority of the people. And the fact that many of our statesmen most distinguished for talent and patriotism have been at one time or other of their political career on both sides of each of the most warmly disputed questions forces upon us the inference that the errors, if errors there were, are attributable to the intrinsic difficulty in many instances of ascertaining the intentions of the framers of the Constitution rather than the influence of any sinister or unpatriotic motive. But the great danger to our institutions does not appear to me to be in a usurpation by the Government of power not granted by the people, but by the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others. Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of the departments. This danger is greatly heightened, as it has been always observable that men are less jealous of encroachments of one department upon another than upon their own reserved rights. When the Constitution of the United States first came from the hands of the Convention which formed it, many of the sternest republicans of the day were alarmed at the extent of the power which had been granted to the Federal Government, and more particularly of that portion which had been assigned to the executive branch. There were in it features which appeared not to be in harmony with their ideas of a simple representative democracy or republic, and knowing the tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual, predictions were made that at no very remote period the Government would terminate in virtual monarchy. It would not become me to say that the fears of these patriots have been already realized; but as I sincerely believe that the tendency of measures and of men's opinions for some years past has been in that direction, it is, I conceive, strictly proper that I should take this occasion to repeat the assurances I have heretofore given of my determination to arrest the progress of that tendency if it really exists and restore the Government to its pristine health and vigor, as far as this can be effected by any legitimate exercise of the power placed in my hands.

I proceed to state in as summary a manner as I can my opinion of the sources of the evils which have been so extensively complained of and the correctives which may be applied. Some of the former are unquestionably to be found in the defects of the Constitution; others, in my judgment, are attributable to a misconstruction of some of its provisions. Of the former is the eligibility of the same individual to a second term of the Presidency. The sagacious mind of Mr. Jefferson early saw and lamented this error, and attempts have been made, hitherto without success, to apply the amendatory power of the States to its correction. As, however, one mode of correction is in the power of every President, and consequently in mine, it would be useless, and perhaps invidious, to enumerate the evils of which, in the opinion of many of our fellow-citizens, this error of the sages who framed the Constitution may have been the source and the bitter fruits which we are still to gather from it if it continues to disfigure our system. It may be observed, however, as a general remark, that republics can commit no greater error than to adopt or continue any feature in their systems of government which may be calculated to create or increase the love of power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs; and surely nothing is more likely to produce such a state of mind than the long continuance of an office of high trust. Nothing can be more corrupting, nothing more destructive of all those noble feelings which belong to the character of a devoted republican patriot. When this corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim. If this is true, it is the part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent his forgetting that he is the accountable agent, not the principal; the servant, not the master. Until an amendment of the Constitution can be effected public opinion may secure the desired object. I give my aid to it by renewing the pledge heretofore given that under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term.

But if there is danger to public liberty from the acknowledged defects of the Constitution in the want of limit to the continuance of the Executive power in the same hands, there is, I apprehend, not much less from a misconstruction of that instrument as it regards the powers actually given. I can not conceive that by a fair construction any or either of its provisions would be found to constitute the President a part of the legislative power. It can not be claimed from the power to recommend, since, although enjoined as a duty upon him, it is a privilege which he holds in common with every other citizen; and although there may be something more of confidence in the propriety of the measures recommended in the one case than in the other, in the obligations of ultimate decision there can be no difference. In the language of the Constitution, "all the legislative powers" which it grants "are vested in the Congress of the United States." It would be a solecism in language to say that any portion of these is not included in the whole.

It may be said, indeed, that the Constitution has given to the Executive the power to annul the acts of the legislative body by refusing to them his assent. So a similar power has necessarily resulted from that instrument to the judiciary, and yet the judiciary forms no part of the Legislature. There is, it is true, this difference between these grants of power: The Executive can put his negative upon the acts of the Legislature for other cause than that of want of conformity to the Constitution, whilst the judiciary can only declare void those which violate that instrument. But the decision of the judiciary is final in such a case, whereas in every instance where the veto of the Executive is applied it may be overcome by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress. The negative upon the acts of the legislative by the executive authority, and that in the hands of one individual, would seem to be an incongruity in our system. Like some others of a similar character, however, it appears to be highly expedient, and if used only with the forbearance and in the spirit which was intended by its authors it may be productive of great good and be found one of the best safeguards to the Union. At the period of the formation of the Constitution the principle does not appear to have enjoyed much favor in the State governments. It existed but in two, and in one of these there was a plural executive. If we would search for the motives which operated upon the purely patriotic and enlightened assembly which framed the Constitution for the adoption of a provision so apparently repugnant to the leading democratic principle that the majority should govern, we must reject the idea that they anticipated from it any benefit to the ordinary course of legislation. They knew too well the high degree of intelligence which existed among the people and the enlightened character of the State legislatures not to have the fullest confidence that the two bodies elected by them would be worthy representatives of such constituents, and, of course, that they would require no aid in conceiving and maturing the measures which the circumstances of the country might require. And it is preposterous to suppose that a thought could for a moment have been entertained that the President, placed at the capital, in the center of the country, could better understand the wants and wishes of the people than their own immediate representatives, who spend a part of every year among them, living with them, often laboring with them, and bound to them by the triple tie of interest, duty, and affection. To assist or control Congress, then, in its ordinary legislation could not, I conceive, have been the motive for conferring the veto power on the President. This argument acquires additional force from the fact of its never having been thus used by the first six Presidents--and two of them were members of the Convention, one presiding over its deliberations and the other bearing a larger share in consummating the labors of that august body than any other person. But if bills were never returned to Congress by either of the Presidents above referred to upon the ground of their being inexpedient or not as well adapted as they might be to the wants of the people, the veto was applied upon that of want of conformity to the Constitution or because errors had been committed from a too hasty enactment.

There is another ground for the adoption of the veto principle, which had probably more influence in recommending it to the Convention than any other. I refer to the security which it gives to the just and equitable action of the Legislature upon all parts of the Union. It could not but have occurred to the Convention that in a country so extensive, embracing so great a variety of soil and climate, and consequently of products, and which from the same causes must ever exhibit a great difference in the amount of the population of its various sections, calling for a great diversity in the employments of the people, that the legislation of the majority might not always justly regard the rights and interests of the minority, and that acts of this character might be passed under an express grant by the words of the Constitution, and therefore not within the competency of the judiciary to declare void; that however enlightened and patriotic they might suppose from past experience the members of Congress might be, and however largely partaking, in the general, of the liberal feelings of the people, it was impossible to expect that bodies so constituted should not sometimes be controlled by local interests and sectional feelings. It was proper, therefore, to provide some umpire from whose situation and mode of appointment more independence and freedom from such influences might be expected. Such a one was afforded by the executive department constituted by the Constitution. A person elected to that high office, having his constituents in every section, State, and subdivision of the Union, must consider himself bound by the most solemn sanctions to guard, protect, and defend the rights of all and of every portion, great or small, from the injustice and oppression of the rest. I consider the veto power, therefore, given by the Constitution to the Executive of the United States solely as a conservative power, to be used only, first, to protect the Constitution from violation; Secondly, the people from the effects of hasty legislation where their will has been probably disregarded or not well understood, and, thirdly, to prevent the effects of combinations violative of the rights of minorities. In reference to the second of these objects I may observe that I consider it the right and privilege of the people to decide disputed points of the Constitution arising from the general grant of power to Congress to carry into effect the powers expressly given; and I believe with Mr. Madison that "repeated recognitions under varied circumstances in acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Government, accompanied by indications in different modes of the concurrence of the general will of the nation," as affording to the President sufficient authority for his considering such disputed points as settled.

Upward of half a century has elapsed since the adoption of the present form of government. It would be an object more highly desirable than the gratification of the curiosity of speculative statesmen if its precise situation could be ascertained, a fair exhibit made of the operations of each of its departments, of the powers which they respectively claim and exercise, of the collisions which have occurred between them or between the whole Government and those of the States or either of them. We could then compare our actual condition after fifty years' trial of our system with what it was in the commencement of its operations and ascertain whether the predictions of the patriots who opposed its adoption or the confident hopes of its advocates have been best realized. The great dread of the former seems to have been that the reserved powers of the States would be absorbed by those of the Federal Government and a consolidated power established, leaving to the States the shadow only of that independent action for which they had so zealously contended and on the preservation of which they relied as the last hope of liberty. Without denying that the result to which they looked with so much apprehension is in the way of being realized, it is obvious that they did not clearly see the mode of its accomplishment. The General Government has seized upon none of the reserved rights of the States. As far as any open warfare may have gone, the State authorities have amply maintained their rights. To a casual observer our system presents no appearance of discord between the different members which compose it. Even the addition of many new ones has produced no jarring. They move in their respective orbits in perfect harmony with the central head and with each other. But there is still an undercurrent at work by which, if not seasonably checked, the worst apprehensions of our anti-federal patriots will be realized, and not only will the State authorities be overshadowed by the great increase of power in the executive department of the General Government, but the character of that Government, if not its designation, be essentially and radically changed. This state of things has been in part effected by causes inherent in the Constitution and in part by the never-failing tendency of political power to increase itself. By making the President the sole distributer of all the patronage of the Government the framers of the Constitution do not appear to have anticipated at how short a period it would become a formidable instrument to control the free operations of the State governments. Of trifling importance at first, it had early in Mr. Jefferson's Administration become so powerful as to create great alarm in the mind of that patriot from the potent influence it might exert in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise. If such could have then been the effects of its influence, how much greater must be the danger at this time, quadrupled in amount as it certainly is and more completely under the control of the Executive will than their construction of their powers allowed or the forbearing characters of all the early Presidents permitted them to make. But it is not by the extent of its patronage alone that the executive department has become dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the appointing power to bring under its control the whole revenues of the country. The Constitution has declared it to be the duty of the President to see that the laws are executed, and it makes him the Commander in Chief of the Armies and Navy of the United States. If the opinion of the most approved writers upon that species of mixed government which in modern Europe is termed _monarchy_ in contradistinction to _despotism_ is correct, there was wanting no other addition to the powers of our Chief Magistrate to stamp a monarchical character on our Government but the control of the public finances; and to me it appears strange indeed that anyone should doubt that the entire control which the President possesses over the officers who have the custody of the public money, by the power of removal with or without cause, does, for all mischievous purposes at least, virtually subject the treasure also to his disposal. The first Roman Emperor, in his attempt to seize the sacred treasure, silenced the opposition of the officer to whose charge it had been committed by a significant allusion to his sword. By a selection of political instruments for the care of the public money a reference to their commissions by a President would be quite as effectual an argument as that of Caesar to the Roman knight. I am not insensible of the great difficulty that exists in drawing a proper plan for the safe-keeping and disbursement of the public revenues, and I know the importance which has been attached by men of great abilities and patriotism to the divorce, as it is called, of the Treasury from the banking institutions. It is not the divorce which is complained of, but the unhallowed union of the Treasury with the executive department, which has created such extensive alarm. To this danger to our republican institutions and that created by the influence given to the Executive through the instrumentality of the Federal officers I propose to apply all the remedies which may be at my command. It was certainly a great error in the framers of the Constitution not to have made the officer at the head of the Treasury Department entirely independent of the Executive. He should at least have been removable only upon the demand of the popular branch of the Legislature. I have determined never to remove a Secretary of the Treasury without communicating all the circumstances attending such removal to both Houses of Congress.

The influence of the Executive in controlling the freedom of the elective franchise through the medium of the public officers can be effectually checked by renewing the prohibition published by Mr. Jefferson forbidding their interference in elections further than giving their own votes, and their own independence secured by an assurance of perfect immunity in exercising this sacred privilege of freemen under the dictates of their own unbiased judgments. Never with my consent shall an officer of the people, compensated for his services out of their pockets, become the pliant instrument of Executive will.

There is no part of the means placed in the hands of the Executive which might be used with greater effect for unhallowed purposes than the control of the public press. The maxim which our ancestors derived from the mother country that "the freedom of the press is the great bulwark of civil and religious liberty" is one of the most precious legacies which they have left us. We have learned, too, from our own as well as the experience of other countries, that golden shackles, by whomsoever or by whatever pretense imposed, are as fatal to it as the iron bonds of despotism. The presses in the necessary employment of the Government should never be used "to clear the guilty or to varnish crime." A decent and manly examination of the acts of the Government should be not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Upon another occasion I have given my opinion at some length upon the impropriety of Executive interference in the legislation of Congress--that the article in the Constitution making it the duty of the President to communicate information and authorizing him to recommend measures was not intended to make him the source in legislation, and, in particular, that he should never be looked to for schemes of finance. It would be very strange, indeed, that the Constitution should have strictly forbidden one branch of the Legislature from interfering in the origination of such bills and that it should be considered proper that an altogether different department of the Government should be permitted to do so. Some of our best political maxims and opinions have been drawn from our parent isle. There are others, however, which can not be introduced in our system without singular incongruity and the production of much mischief, and this I conceive to be one. No matter in which of the houses of Parliament a bill may originate nor by whom introduced—a minister or a member of the opposition--by the fiction of law, or rather of constitutional principle, the sovereign is supposed to have prepared it agreeably to his will and then submitted it to Parliament for their advice and consent. Now the very reverse is the case here, not only with regard to the principle, but the forms prescribed by the Constitution. The principle certainly assigns to the only body constituted by the Constitution (the legislative body) the power to make laws, and the forms even direct that the enactment should be ascribed to them. The Senate, in relation to revenue bills, have the right to propose amendments, and so has the Executive by the power given him to return them to the House of Representatives with his objections. It is in his power also to propose amendments in the existing revenue laws, suggested by his observations upon their defective or injurious operation. But the delicate duty of devising schemes of revenue should be left where the Constitution has placed it--with the immediate representatives of the people. For similar reasons the mode of keeping the public treasure should be prescribed by them, and the further removed it may be from the control of the Executive the more wholesome the arrangement and the more in accordance with republican principle.

Connected with this subject is the character of the currency. The idea of making it exclusively metallic, however well intended, appears to me to be fraught with more fatal consequences than any other scheme having no relation to the personal rights of the citizens that has ever been devised. If any single scheme could produce the effect of arresting at once that mutation of condition by which thousands of our most indigent fellow-citizens by their industry and enterprise are raised to the possession of wealth, that is the one. If there is one measure better calculated than another to produce that state of things so much deprecated by all true republicans, by which the rich are daily adding to their hoards and the poor sinking deeper into penury, it is an exclusive metallic currency. Or if there is a process by which the character of the country for generosity and nobleness of feeling may be destroyed by the great increase and necessary toleration of usury, it is an exclusive metallic currency.

Amongst the other duties of a delicate character which the President is called upon to perform is the supervision of the government of the Territories of the United States. Those of them which are destined to become members of our great political family are compensated by their rapid progress from infancy to manhood for the partial and temporary deprivation of their political rights. It is in this District only where American citizens are to be found who under a settled policy are deprived of many important political privileges without any inspiring hope as to the future. Their only consolation under circumstances of such deprivation is that of the devoted exterior guards of a camp—that their sufferings secure tranquillity and safety within. Are there any of their countrymen who would subject them to greater sacrifices, to any other humiliations than those essentially necessary to the security of the object for which they were thus separated from their fellow-citizens? Are their rights alone not to be guaranteed by the application of those great principles upon which all our constitutions are founded? We are told by the greatest of British orators and statesmen that at the commencement of the War of the Revolution the most stupid men in England spoke of "their American subjects." Are there, indeed, citizens of any of our States who have dreamed _of their subjects_ in the District of Columbia? Such dreams can never be realized by any agency of mine. The people of the District of Columbia are not the subjects of the people of the States, but free American citizens. Being in the latter condition when the Constitution was formed, no words used in that instrument could have been intended to deprive them of that character. If there is anything in the great principle of unalienable rights so emphatically insisted upon in our Declaration of Independence, they could neither make nor the United States accept a surrender of their liberties and become the_subjects_--in other words, the slaves--of their former fellow-citizens. If this be true--and it will scarcely be denied by anyone who has a correct idea of his own rights as an American citizen--the grant to Congress of exclusive jurisdiction in the District of Columbia can be interpreted, so far as respects the aggregate people of the United States, as meaning nothing more than to allow to Congress the controlling power necessary to afford a free and safe exercise of the functions assigned to the General Government by the Constitution. In all other respects the legislation of Congress should be adapted to their peculiar position and wants and be conformable with their deliberate opinions of their own interests.

I have spoken of the necessity of keeping the respective departments of the Government, as well as all the other authorities of our country, within their appropriate orbits. This is a matter of difficulty, in some cases, as the powers which they respectively claim are often not defined by any distinct lines. Mischievous, however, in their tendencies as collisions of this kind may be, those which arise between the respective communities which for certain purposes compose one nation are much more so, for no such nation can long exist without the careful culture of those feelings of confidence and affection which are the effective bonds to union between free and confederated states. Strong as is the tie of interest, it has been often found ineffectual. Men blinded by their passions have been known to adopt measures for their country in direct opposition to all the suggestions of policy. The alternative, then, is to destroy or keep down a bad passion by creating and fostering a good one, and this seems to be the corner stone upon which our American political architects have reared the fabric of our Government. The cement which was to bind it and perpetuate its existence was the affectionate attachment between all its members, To insure the continuance of this feeling, produced at first by a community of dangers, of sufferings, and of interests, the advantages of each were made accessible to all. No participation in any good possessed by any member of our extensive Confederacy, except in domestic government, was withheld from the citizen of any other member. By a process attended with no difficulty, no delay, no expense but that of removal, the citizen of one might become the citizen of any other, and successively of the whole. The lines, too, separating powers to be exercised by the citizens of one State from those of another seem to be so distinctly drawn as to leave no room for misunderstanding. The citizens of each State unite in their persons all the privileges which that character confers and all that they may claim as citizens of the United States, but in no case can the same persons at the same time act as the citizen of two separate States, and _he is therefore positively precluded from any interference with the reserved powers of any State but that of which he is for the time being a citizen_. He may, indeed, offer to the citizens of other States his advice as to their management, and the form in which it is tendered is left to his own discretion and sense of propriety. It may be observed, however, that organized associations of citizens requiring compliance with their wishes too much resemble the _recommendations_ of Athens to her allies, supported by an armed and powerful fleet. It was, indeed, to the ambition of the leading States of Greece to control the domestic concerns of the others that the destruction of that celebrated Confederacy, and subsequently of all its members, is mainly to be attributed, and it is owing to the absence of that spirit that the Helvetic Confederacy has for so many years been preserved. Never has there been seen in the institutions of the separate members of any confederacy more elements of discord. In the principles and forms of government and religion, as well as in the circumstances of the several Cantons, so marked a discrepancy was observable as to promise anything but harmony in their intercourse or permanency in their alliance, and yet for ages neither has been interrupted. Content with the positive benefits which their union produced, with the independence
and safety from foreign aggression which it secured, these sagacious people respected the institutions of each other, however repugnant to their own principles and prejudices.

Our Confederacy, fellow-citizens, can only be preserved by the same forbearance. Our citizens must be content with the exercise of the powers with which the Constitution clothes them. The attempt of those of one State to control the domestic institutions of another can only result in feelings of distrust and jealousy, the certain harbingers of disunion, violence, and civil war, and the ultimate destruction of our free institutions. Our Confederacy is perfectly illustrated by the terms and principles governing a common copartnership. There is a fund of power to be exercised under the direction of the joint councils of the allied members, but that which has been reserved by the individual members is intangible by the common Government or the individual members composing it. To attempt it finds no support in the principles of our Constitution.

It should be our constant and earnest endeavor mutually to cultivate a spirit of concord and harmony among the various parts of our Confederacy. Experience has abundantly taught us that the agitation by citizens of one part of the Union of a subject not confided to the General Government, but exclusively under the guardianship of the local authorities, is productive of no other consequences than bitterness, alienation, discord, and injury to the very cause which is intended to be advanced. Of all the great interests which appertain to our country, that of union--cordial, confiding, fraternal union--is by far the most important, since it is the only true and sure guaranty of all others.

In consequence of the embarrassed state of business and the currency, some of the States may meet with difficulty in their financial concerns. However deeply we may regret anything imprudent or excessive in the engagements into which States have entered for purposes of their own, it does not become us to disparage the State governments, nor to discourage them from making proper efforts for their own relief. On the contrary, it is our duty to encourage them to the extent of our constitutional authority to apply their best means and cheerfully to make all necessary sacrifices and submit to all necessary burdens to fulfill their engagements and maintain their credit, for the character and credit of the several States form a part of the character and credit of the whole country. The resources of the country are abundant, the enterprise and activity of our people proverbial, and we may well hope that wise legislation and prudent administration by the respective governments, each acting within its own sphere, will restore former prosperity.

Unpleasant and even dangerous as collisions may sometimes be between the constituted authorities of the citizens of our country in relation to the lines which separate their respective jurisdictions, the results can be of no vital injury to our institutions if that ardent patriotism, that devoted attachment to liberty, that spirit of moderation and forbearance for which our countrymen were once distinguished, continue to be cherished. If this continues to be the ruling passion of our souls, the weaker feeling of the mistaken enthusiast will be corrected, the Utopian dreams of the scheming politician dissipated, and the complicated intrigues of the demagogue rendered harmless. The spirit of liberty is the sovereign balm for every injury which our institutions may receive. On the contrary, no care that can be used in the construction of our Government, no division of powers, no distribution of checks in its several departments, will prove effectual to keep us a free people if this spirit is suffered to decay; and decay it will without constant nurture. To the neglect of this duty the best historians agree in attributing the ruin of all the republics with whose existence and fall their writings have made us acquainted. The same causes will ever produce the same effects, and as long as the love of power is a dominant passion of the human bosom, and as long as the understandings of men can be warped and their affections changed by operations upon their passions and prejudices, so long will the liberties of a people depend on their own constant attention to its preservation. The danger to all well-established free governments arises from the unwillingness of the people to believe in its existence or from the influence of designing men diverting their attention from the quarter whence it approaches to a source from which it can never come. This is the old trick of those who would usurp the government of their country. In the name of democracy they speak, warning the people against the influence of wealth and the danger of aristocracy. History, ancient and modern, is full of such examples. Caesar became the master of the Roman people and the senate under the pretense of supporting the democratic claims of the former against the aristocracy of the latter; Cromwell, in the character of protector of the liberties of the people, became the dictator of England, and Bolivar possessed himself of unlimited power with the title of his country's liberator. There is, on the contrary, no instance on record of an extensive and well-established republic being changed into an aristocracy. The tendencies of all such governments in their decline is to monarchy, and the antagonist principle to liberty there is the spirit of faction--a spirit which assumes the character and in times of great excitement imposes itself upon the people as the genuine spirit of freedom, and, like the false Christs whose coming was foretold by the Savior, seeks to, and were it possible would, impose upon the true and most faithful disciples of liberty. It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to whom they have intrusted power. And although there is at times much difficulty in distinguishing the false from the true spirit, a calm and dispassionate investigation will detect the counterfeit, as well by the character of its operations as the results that are produced. The true spirit of liberty, although devoted, persevering, bold, and uncompromising in principle, that secured is mild and tolerant and scrupulous as to the means it employs, whilst the spirit of party, assuming to be that of liberty, is harsh, vindictive, and intolerant, and totally reckless as to the character of the allies which it brings to the aid of its cause. When the genuine spirit of liberty animates the body of a people to a thorough examination of their affairs, it leads to the excision of every excrescence which may have fastened itself upon any of the departments of the government, and restores the system to its pristine health and beauty. But the reign of an intolerant spirit of party amongst a free people seldom fails to result in a dangerous accession to the executive power introduced and established amidst unusual professions of devotion to democracy.

The foregoing remarks relate almost exclusively to matters connected with our domestic concerns. It may be proper, however, that I should give some indications to my fellow-citizens of my proposed course of conduct in the management of our foreign relations. I assure them, therefore, that it is my intention to use every means in my power to preserve the friendly intercourse which now so happily subsists with every foreign nation, and that although, of course, not well informed as to the state of pending negotiations with any of them, I see in the personal characters of the sovereigns, as well as in the mutual interests of our own and of the governments with which our relations are most intimate, a pleasing guaranty that the harmony so important to the interests of their subjects as well as of our citizens will not be interrupted by the advancement of any claim or pretension upon their part to which our honor would not permit us to yield. Long the defender of my country's rights in the field, I trust that my fellow-citizens will not see in my earnest desire to preserve peace with foreign powers any indication that their rights will ever be sacrificed or the honor of the nation tarnished by any admission on the part of their Chief Magistrate unworthy of their former glory. In our intercourse with our aboriginal neighbors the same liberality and justice which marked the course prescribed to me by two of my illustrious predecessors when acting under their direction in the discharge of the duties of superintendent and commissioner shall be strictly observed. I can conceive of no more sublime spectacle, none more likely to propitiate an impartial and common Creator, than a rigid adherence to the principles of justice on the part of a powerful nation in its transactions with a weaker and uncivilized people whom circumstances have placed at its disposal.

Before concluding, fellow-citizens, I must say something to you on the subject of the parties at this time existing in our country. To me it appears perfectly clear that the interest of that country requires that the violence of the spirit by which those parties are at this time governed must be greatly mitigated, if not entirely extinguished, or consequences will ensue which are appalling to be thought of.

If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance sufficient to keep the public functionaries within the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends. Beyond that they become destructive of public virtue, the parent of a spirit antagonist to that of liberty, and eventually its inevitable conqueror. We have examples of republics where the love of country and of liberty at one time were the dominant passions of the whole mass of citizens, and yet, with the continuance of the name and forms of free government, not a vestige of these qualities remaining in the bosoms of any one of its citizens. It was the beautiful remark of a distinguished English writer that "in the Roman senate Octavius had a party and Antony a party, but the Commonwealth had none." Yet the senate continued to meet in the temple of liberty to talk of the sacredness and beauty of the Commonwealth and gaze at the statues of the elder Brutus and of the Curtii and Decii, and the people assembled in the forum, not, as in the days of Camillus and the Scipios, to cast their free votes for annual magistrates or pass upon the acts of the senate, but to receive from the hands of the leaders of the respective parties their share of the spoils and to shout for one or the other, as those collected in Gaul or Egypt and the lesser Asia would furnish the larger dividend. The spirit of liberty had fled, and, avoiding the abodes of civilized man, had sought protection in the wilds of Scythia or Scandinavia; and so under the operation of the same causes and influences it will fly from our Capitol and our forums. A calamity so awful, not only to our country, but to the world, must be deprecated by every patriot and every tendency to a state of things likely to produce it immediately checked. Such a tendency has existed--does exist. Always the friend of my countrymen, never their flatterer, it becomes my duty to say to them from this high place to which their partiality has exalted me that there exists in the land a spirit hostile to their best interests--hostile to liberty itself. It is a spirit contracted in its views, selfish in its objects. It looks to the aggrandizement of a few even to the destruction of the interests of the whole. The entire remedy is with the people. Something, however, may be effected by the means which they have placed in my hands. It is union that we want, not of a party for the sake of that party, but a union of the whole country for the sake of the whole country, for the defense of its interests and its honor against foreign aggression, for the defense of those principles for which our ancestors so gloriously contended. As far as it depends upon me it shall be accomplished. All the influence that I possess shall be exerted to prevent the formation at least of an Executive party in the halls of the legislative body. I wish for the support of no member of that body to any measure of mine that does not satisfy his judgment and his sense of duty to those from whom he holds his appointment, nor any confidence in advance from the people but that asked for by Mr. Jefferson, "to give firmness and effect to the legal administration of their affairs."

I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time.

Fellow-citizens, being fully invested with that high office to which the partiality of my countrymen has called me, I now take an affectionate leave of you. You will bear with you to your homes the remembrance of the pledge I have this day given to discharge all the high duties of my exalted station according to the best of my ability, and I shall enter upon their performance with entire confidence in the support of a just and generous people.

MARCH 4, 1841.

This was taken from the collection of presidential papers at

Return to TOC