No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, THE UNDERMINING OF FREE ENTERPRISE, EMERGENCE OF “SOFT FASCISM”
Over the past decade, the expression public-private partnership has crept into our public lexicon. What is a public-private partnership? What purposes were they supposedly created to serve? What, on the other hand, is free enterprise? Are the two compatible?In answering these questions we shall see that although advocates of public-private partnerships frequently speak of economic development, public-private partnerships really amount to economic control—they are just one of the key components of the collectivist edifice being built up around the idea of sustainable development. Within the economic arena of sustainable development is the emergence of what we might call soft fascism: a system that fits the dictionary definitions of fascism but whose totalitarian effects will be felt primarily by those who wish to walk their own paths in life rather than walk the paths the sustainable developers are in the process of laying down.
by Mike Pyatt
President Abraham Lincoln purportedly replied to a letter regarding the North and South War, asking him if he believed God was on his side. He said, “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” Throughout or brief history as a Republic, politicians and leaders have invoked God’s help in moments and periods of tumult, trials, terror and celebration. At Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865, invoked our Beneficent Father, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away…” Immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attack President George W. Bush, at the National Cathedral, followed Lincoln’s pattern, invoking God on our behalf. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt’s Proclamation of a National Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer beseeched Him for “a continuation of your great blessings.” Episcopalian, George Washington’s Circular Address to the United States, June 8, 1783, petitioned “Almighty God,” to “keep the United States in your holy protection.”
Public schools do not teach the significance of the birth of our country. Perhaps families should start a new tradition of reading the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July. Read it to your children and be prepared to explain the real reason for our celebration. Read it to your friends over that BBQ. Be inspired by the original words of our Founding Fathers.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.