Ancient history confirms Washington's fears. If you are irreligious, take the following as purely historical, but consider anyway: the Hebrews left a highly centrist, despotic Egypt and Moses gave them a govt of almost NO govt. No standing army, no king (both forbidden, even), and no taxes. They had enormous self-responsibility in defense and social welfare, but no one to really enforce it but the Law (God's). In time, they were plagued by the armies of kings, trained for war and controlled by one man's decision, unlike the eternal bickering and waffling of Hebrew militia. So the Hebrews demanded a king. They were warned extensively in 1 Samuel 8 what this would bring down on them, what a central govt would do to wreck their freedom and peace. If one substitutes the word "king" in this chapter for "any highly centralized govt" you will see the prediction works absolutely as predicted. For myself, I have sadly come to accept that God gave the best form of govt (almost no govt), but we cannot keep it. Try tho we might, "I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps." (Jeremiah 10:23)

Ala "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (google it) the real US died long long ago, and what now walks around in a macabre parody of that long-dead nation is one Mussolini would have solid, growing satisfaction with.

The only reason socialism hasn't yet created 'heaven on earth' in all of history is that the govt needs just a little more of your money, and a little more power.

It seldom fails that those who defeat tyranny become tyrants themselves. Samuel Adams threw off King George only to end up saying "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Lincoln crushed the South after having once nobly declared, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." --Jan. 12, 1848 (The War with Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives). When he saw the money and power the North would lose, Lincoln became a tyrant. I could go on and on, but the point is well-established, most of us are as our forebears... noble until it costs us something. Then out comes the greed, lying, twisting law to suit our purposes. Interestingly, the Bible addresses the issue of govt rather well. When the Hebrews came out of Egypt, God gave them essentially NO govt, and "every man did what was right in his own eyes." But this required tremendous self-responsibility, which man couldn't keep up with. So after severe problems for lack of stepping up to the plate as individuals, they demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8. They were told and warned exactly what a king would do to them (take their wealth, conscript their labor for the king and his cronies, make war and use their sons for sword-fodder, etc). If you read that passage and substitute any type of govt (congress, parliament, whatever) instead of the word "king," you will see that what God warned against is EXACTLY what is going on today. Government is simply a choice of which tyranny you want. Nope, I don't know how to get along without one, but that doesn't change things. It isn't the type of govt that matters, for we had good govt in 1789. What matters, and is insurmountable, is the evil in our hearts.

If GW said this today, he'd be branded as anti-American, a defeatist, a flaming liberal who won't "fight for our FREEEEEDOM" [insert waving flag here] by going into Iraq. I don't see any Swiss vomiting such propaganda, and they dont' seem to be concerned about their liberty. (And in case you are wondering, I'm so conservative I'm off the scale, and NOT a flaming liberal...)

The only thing I want to know concerns E.K., the first respondant. Why do you think the VNam protests eroded patriotism, morality and spiritual life? I am so right-wing I'm off the scale, and I think those protests were VERY patriotic (in principle, but NOT by the NVA-flagwaving leftist bunch), and were against an immoral war. Stalin would be proud of how DC kept us in that useless, pointless war, run mostly by McNamara, who wrote that he was a computer guy who didn't have a clue of what he was doing.

Sounds good, but few live it out. Most will defend their positions to the death because it often is to give up their income and power, all they have lived for and believed for so long, to admit they are wrong. Example: many religious leaders, and the entire evolutionist academia establishment, who will not allow any challenge or question to their own orthodoxy (see Ben Stein's "Expelled"). This, on top of all the politico's who are entrenched in their own nonsensical beliefs and acts, many of whom quietly admit the folly. I would reply to Russell he is dreaming to think liberals are any different than conservatives or anyone else human in this matter.

What Archer said!!!!

If you flatulate in a public elevator, don't complain about your personal rights and freedom being assaulted by those who are tired of having you throw your garbage over the fence into their yard. I speak of the airwaves, magazines, books, and the growing filthy concepts found even in our schools. YOU will not be neutral and keep your influences out of public places, so I would say you should EXPECT reactive morality. Censorship in morality ironically usually begins with immoral people who will not restrain their influences while in public, and who then weep and cry because the other side is tired to the bone of their selfish, unrestrained displays of filth. Grow up!

I am highly sympathetic to keeping the nose of govt out, but I am also highly sympathetic to intervening in some decisions about one's self, for seldom does it stay simply a matter about that individual. A choice to take meth often means a child will go hungry/homeless, or worse. A deviant behavior can be a progressive problem: will YOUR child be the prey when the pervert seeks to satisfy his escalating fantasy? Yet I recognize govt is very happy to solve your problems... if you just give them more power. Sometimes the cure is indeed worse than the disease.

THOMAS JEFFERSON spoke of such IRS capos, inmates like the rest of us who are willing to sell themselves to the system: "We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, ...our people ...must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give our earnings of fifteen of these to the government, have no time to think, no means of calling our mis-managers to account; but be glad to obtain sustenance by HIRING OURSELVES OUT TO RIVET CHAINS ON THE NECKS OF OUR FELLOW SUFFERERS... And this is the tendency of all human governments ...till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery ...And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." (cited by Joseph Bannister, former IRS-CID agent, ■Investigating the Federal Income Tax,■ 2000. www.freedomabovefortune.com)

Yeah, "voluntary" as much as the steer headed down the slaughter chute, threatened by an electric cattle prod. Die, or, get shocked and THEN die. Big choice.

Try to get "the law" to ANSWER a question, when they don't want to, as I did with the IRS. It was at that moment I quit believing this is a free country anymore.

Waffler says, " Income is what you put into your pocket, outgo is what you take out of your pocket." Now THAT is a carefully crafted legal definition. Boy, we need to call the IRS and have him appointed to be the "unsilly" commissioner. I can interpret his meaning a dozen different ways, including NO DEDUCTIONS PERIOD. Now THAT is silly!

Quigley's book was intended for an elitist readership, but when the John Birch Society began quoting it, the "good guys" started looking for copies of the book to expose the elitist conspiracy. Quigley says himself that he could not get the book published again, that the publisher lied repeatedly to him about the demand for a reprinting, and it never happened even tho Quigley provided photocopies of public requests from libraries across the nation. Only then did the publisher stop denying there was enough demand. Today a copy of the book, if available, draws a large sum. For more information, consult The Creature From Jekyll Island, by G Edward Griffin, and look up Quigley in the index.

Why should we trust the UN to restrain itself to "defined and limited powers" when the US govt itself habitually mocks, ignores, and abuses this concept? How many foreigners are there that truly understand LESS govt is BETTER?

RobertSRQ writes us that "I also believe that morality forms part of our genetic make-up and that morality, like other forms of evolution, can be retained in the genes." Well, Robert, "might makes right" is a true statement, and from that I hold that God is the ultimate Might, therefore His decree of right and wrong = true morality. Your sentence above is an exercise in words that mean nothing in the end. I can ignore your moral code and anyone else who has no power, and decide that to poke you in the eye, steal your lunch, is both moral and good. And who are you to disagree, and why should I care? Your invented source of morality (evolution) has no might, no power to invalidate my morality. Indeed, I would say your source has already firmly decreed it is no more immoral for me to steal your lunch than it is for the cougar to mug a deer. Lunch is served, and that is good in the eyes of the survival of the fittest. Know that every time you employ the word 'morality' as an evolutionist, you are stealing the word from the religious camp, because true, ultimate, immutable morality can only come from God who has the power to decree and enforce it, and who chooses to hardwire it into every one of His created people so they know right and wrong internally.

RobertSRQ says "nothing but horror and misery" which shows his balance. Aside from the endless arguments he would pose(already answered many times), he dismisses a belief system that captures the minds and makes converts of many of the best in science and other disciplines. Oh that they were as wise and knowledgeable as Robert, who knows all and need not be charitable to those of us who disagree with him after our own lifelong studies. As to the "horror and misery" he speaks of, the bodies of those who died from atheism in the 20th century alone outnumber all before and since who have died from religious perversities. So what hope do YOU offer us, Bob? The grave? If so, enjoy yourself while you can and quit wasting time pontificating to the rest of us, getting ulcers from guys like me.

Adams observation rings true of all men, not just religious folk. Scientists and academicians know they dare not challenge conventional evolution, upon penalty of loss of tenure, grant, position, future publishings. It is common knowledge that the political party bosses largely run Congress, not our elected officials. Dare to oppose party orthodoxy and you will be ostracized and shunned financially in your next election bid. For a military officer to seriously challenge strategic or tactical orthodoxy is to end one's hope for promotion and career (Gen. Billy Mitchell, Viet Nam, weapon systems the military said they didn't need, didn't want, but got anyway). Even archaeologists are persecuted and controlled by the "priesthood" of those who control digs, grants, and archaeology-laws. Most notable is the Israel Antiquities Authority, who has censored free intellectual discussion and publishing, persecuted individuals and even caused their arrests on dubious evidence (for allegedly manufacturing fake artifacts, but which many professionals defend as authentic). So don't think this is a "religious person" phenomena. We have met the enemy, and it is us.

E. Archer, what makes you think Jefferson was the only one who could (and can) read Greek and Latin and has studied the earliest versions of the Bible? Why should I, or anyone, venerate his conclusions above the "Bible-thumpers" of today? I suspect you disparage "Bible-thumpers" (Jesus was also often -illogically- discounted by name-calling) because you dont' like what they say, for the same reason they did not like what Jesus said in His day-- He constantly challenged them to believe what they refused to believe, could not accept. If Jefferson believed the virgin birth is a myth, then he disbelieved against the disciplines of historical analysis (too detailed for here, but google 'virgin birth debate' and you will find the positive arguments are not simple-minded mythological beliefs). He disbelieved the ability of God to create a virgin birth, he disbelieved God can keep man from polluting His revealed written word, this same God who formed the universe and life in such astonishing intricacy??!! What logic is that?! I'm rather astonished Jefferson, or anyone, could believe this contradiction as possible. This is a weak God, if indeed it is true, and it would make God a liar, for He has said His word is pure and inviolable, many times. Jefferson made himself God when he "helped" God by rewriting the Bible.

There is nothing wrong with the quote, but there is in the way the quoter poses it, which is why I give it a "thumbs down." The quoter alleges Williams was for "the separation of church and state." But what is meant by that? (Example): Did Williams favor a law against murder because GOVT thought it should be, or because as a preacher he knew GOD already ruled on the matter? If he divorced God from his position, why was he wasting his time as a preacher? If on the other hand he thought the govt should criminalize murder BECAUSE God (as the sole source of morality) had already outlawed it, and NOT because the raw power of any church said it should be criminalized, then the accurate definition of "separation of church and state" is made clear. Williams, as a preacher, was quite aware of what Romans 13 said, that "there is no governing authority except that what God has established." Interpretations about "church and state" must be made based on what we know a Founding Father believed. Williams never believed God should be banished from the decisions of government, for he knew God creates all governments (for the purpose of the time at hand). But we do know Williams despised the raw power some churches used to enforce their beliefs on all people, via governmental edicts. Matters concerning the observation of "the Sabbath" are highly debatable, but do not cause a breakdown in society by non-compliance, and are a matter of faith. Issues of murder, on the other hand, do cause breakdown, and this is the proper domain of govt, as deputized by God to act according to His will. This is what Williams knew and taught, based on the evidence. I think Williams would be horrified by how his words, (later repeated by Jefferson), have been abused and twisted to where they are used to eject his God from the halls of our government. Beyond this, was Williams saying (read the quote again) the religion of God is a buffet line of self-selected truths? If so, he was wrong. God's way is not a cafeteria-line religion. It appears Williams, in context, was saying God does not require government to enforce religious uniformity for good government to exist, nor to enforce faith on man. "Enforced faith" is an oxymoronic term, and Williams was fighting against this bizarre idea when he made the above statement.

Hermann Goering (see above comment) is alive and well in the good old USA. Project Northwoods was revealed to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. Conceived by the Joint Chiefs in the 1960s and bearing the written approval of each and every one of them, Project Northwoods was a plan to create popular support for an American war with Cuba. The idea was to launch a campaign of terrorism against Americans and blame it on Cuba . The Joint Chiefs called for (stop me when this starts to sound familiar): Sniper attacks against civilians in the streets, the sinking of boats carrying Cuban refugees, civilian airline hijackings and downings, the framing of Cuban immigrants for bombing attacks perpetrated by American agents, and 'a series of well-coordinated events' targeting U.S. Marines stationed at Guantanamo Bay. One of the more creative ideas was to hope for (and exploit) a tragedy when astronaut John Glenn was to make a liftoff from Cape Canaveral, FL. Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, 'the idea is to provide irrevocable proof that ... the fault lies with the Communists, et al, Cuba. Eugene Debs, tho a socialist, was dead on target in his statement.

Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshal at the Nuremberg Trials after WW2: “Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whther it is a demoncracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC Commandant, Medal of Honor: “I spent 33 years (in the Marines) . . . most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City (Bank) boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. ...In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested... I had... a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions... I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents.” --The World Tomorrow, October, 1931; N.Y. Times, August 21, 1931

As a son of a career army officer with 7 yr in the USAF myself before I quit for good, I saw then and I see now that the bloated US military forces of today serve as a big-govt jobs-program, despite the patriotic claims by enlistees. I can't tell you how many times I was told "this is a steady paycheck, so reenlist!" "You won't make it on the outside!" This symbiotic arrangement between military jobs and big govt serves as a huge voter-base in favor of continued big govt (whatever party makes no difference) and WAR. Who would ever vote themselves out of a job? -- not your average sailor, soldier or airman! Besides, the mindset of most military personnel is that we need this wealth-consuming monster for "peace!", for "freedom!" (nebulous, undefined terms that normally accompany the bullying and interfering with other nation's internal affairs. King George Bush is spending a billion a week in Iraq. Do you think this money comes from goldminers digging up new gold from the hills? No, it is fiat currency, cranked out from a printing press or simply created on a computer screen. It is the HIDDEN TAX, it steals that money under your mattress and they didn't even have to break into your house. But time to end my rant and get back to work.

Killing tyrants is a good thing, but how does one always know who is the tyrant? We once killed the king's Redcoats over a 4% tax, and even made a national holiday to celebrate the act. Now King Congress burdens us with taxation far above that, but we rally to the flag and say "we gotta support the king!" much like the Loyalists did. I have to wonder if those Continentals would still give their lives if they knew how quickly we squandered what they gave us, or that we have effectively ecome Loyalists who support King Congress who is becoming (or has already become?) arguably more oppressive than King George ever was.