Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Declaration of the Pennsylvania Provincial Conference

June 24, 1776

The Conference Met. The committee appointed for that purpose brought in a draft of a Declaration on the subject of Independence of this Colony of the Crown of Great Britain, which was ordered to be read, by special order. The same was read a second time, and, being fully considered, it was, with the greatest unanimity of all the Members, agreed to and adopted, and is in the words following, viz:

“Whereas, George the Third, King of Great Britain, &c., in violation of the principals of the British Constitution, and of the laws of justice and humanity, hath, by an accumulation of oppressions unparalleled in history, excluded the inhabitants of this, with the other American Colonies, from his protection and whereas he hath paid no regard to any of our numerous and dutiful petitions for a redress of our complicated grievances, but hath lately purchased foreign troops to assist in enslaving us, and hath excited the savages of this country to carry on a war against us, as also the negroes to imbrue their hands in the blood of their masters, in a manner unpracticed by civilized nations; and hath lately insulted our calamities, by declaring that he will show us no mercy until he has reduced us: And whereas the obligations of allegiance (being reciprocal between a King and his subjects) are not dissolved on the side of the Colonists, by the despotism of the said King, insomuch that it now appears that loyalty to him is treason against the good people of this country: And whereas not only the Parliament, but, there is reason to believe, too many of the people of Great Britain, have concurred in the aforesaid arbitrary and unjust proceedings against us: And whereas the publick virtue of this Colony (so essential to its liberty and happiness) must be endangered by a future political union with, or dependence upon, a Crown and nation so lost to justice, patriotism, and magnanimity:- We, the Deputies of the people of Pennsylvania, assembled in full Provincial Conference, for forming a plan for executing the Resolve of Congress of the 15th of May last, for suppressing all authority in this Province derived from the Crown of Great Britain, and for establishing a Government upon the authority of the people only, now, in this publick manner, in behalf of ourselves, and with the approbation, consent, and authority of our constituents, unanimously declare our willingness to concur in a vote of the Congress declaring the United Colonies free and independent States, provided the forming the Government, and regulation of the internal police of this Colony, be always reserved to the people of the said Colony; and we do further call upon the nations of Europe, and appeal to the great Arbiter and Governour of the Empires of the World, to witness for us that this declaration did not originate in ambition, or in an impatience of lawful authority, but that we were driven to it, in obedience to the first principles of nature, by the oppressions and cruelties of the aforesaid King and Parliament of Great Britain, as the only possible measure that was left us to preserve and establish our liberties, and to transmit them inviolate to posterity.”

Ordered, That this Declaration be signed at the table, and that the President deliver it to Congress.

Instructions of the Assembly of Pennsylvania to their Delegates in Congress

June 8, 1776

Gentlemen: When, by our instructions of last November, we strictly enjoined you, in behalf of this Colony, to dissent from, and utterly reject any proposition, should such be made, that might cause or lead to a separation from Great Britain, or a change of the form of this Government, our restrictions did not arise from any diffidence of your ability, prudence, or integrity, but from an earnest desire to serve the good people of Pennsylvania with fidelity, in times so full of alarming dangers and perplexing difficulties.

The situation of publick affairs is since so greatly altered, that we now think ourselves justifiable in removing the restrictions laid upon you by those instructions.

The contempt with which the last petition of the honourable Congress has been treated; the late act of Parliament declaring the just resistance of the Colonists against violences actually offered, to be rebellion, excluding them from the protection of the Crown, and even compelling some of them to bear arms against their countrymen; the treaties of the King of Great Britain with other Princes for engaging foreign mercenaries to aid the forces of that kingdom in their hostile enterprises against America, and his answer to the petition of the Lord-Mayor, Aldermen and Commons, of the City of London, manifest such a determined and implacable resolution to effect the utter destruction of these Colonies, that all hopes of a reconciliation, on reasonable terms, are extinguished. Nevertheless, it is our ardent desire that a civil war, with all its attending miseries, could be ended by a secure and honourable peace.

We therefore hereby authorize you to concur with the other Delegates in Congress in forming such further compacts between the United Colonies, concluding such treaties with foreign Kingdoms and States, and in adopting such other measures as shall be judged necessary for promoting the liberty, safety, and interests of America; reserving to the people of this Colony the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police of the same.

The happiness of these Colonies has, during the whole course of this fatal controversy, been our first wish; their reconciliation with Great Britain our next. Ardently have we prayed for the accomplishment of both. But if we must renounce the one or the other, we humbly trust in the mercies of the Supreme Governour of the Universe, that we shall not stand condemned before His throne if our choice is determined by that overruling law of self-preservation, which His divine wisdom has thought fit to implant in the hearts of His creatures.

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress

Excerpts from the
Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress
October 14, 1774

Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretences, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board of commissioners with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county.

And whereas, in consequence of other statutes, judges who before held only estates at will in their offices, have been made dependent on the Crown alone for their salaries, and standing armies kept in times of peace. And it has lately been resolved in Parliament, that by force of a statute made in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of king Henry the Eight, colonists may be transported to England, and tried there upon accusations for treasons and misprisions, or concealments of treasons committed in the colonies; and by a late statute, such trial have been directed in cases therein mentioned.

And whereas, in the last session of Parliament, three statutes were made…[the Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Administration of Justice Act], and another statute was then made [the Quebec Act]…All which statutes are impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights.

And whereas, Assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances; and their dutiful, humble, loyal, & reasonable petitions to the crown for redress, have been repeatedly treated with contempt, by His Majesty’s ministers of state:

The good people of the several Colonies of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode-island and Providence plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Delaware, Pennsylvania, Newcastle Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, justly alarmed at these arbitrary proceedings of parliament and administration, have severally elected, constituted, and appointed deputies to meet, and sit in general Congress, in the city of Philadelphia, in order to obtain such establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties, may not be subverted:

Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these Colonies, taking into their most serious consideration the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place, as Englishmen their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties, declare,

That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following Rights:

Resolved, N.C.D.

1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, & they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.

2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects within the realm of England.

3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.

4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully consent to the operation of such acts of the British parliament, as are bona fide retrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its respective members excluding every idea of taxation, internal or external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America without their consent.

5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.

6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.

7. That these, his majesty’s colonies, are likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.

8. That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the King; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal.

9. That the keeping a Standing army in these colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of that legislature of that colony in which such army is kept, is against the law.

10. It is indispensably necessary to good government, and rendered essential by the English constitution, that the constituent branches of the legislature be independent of each other; that, therefore, the exercise of legislative power in several colonies, by a council appointed during pleasure, by the crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous, and destructive to the freedom of American legislation.

All and each of which the aforesaid deputies, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on, as their indubitable rights and liberties which cannot be legally taken from them, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without their own consent, by their representatives in their several provincial legislatures.

The Declaration of Rights

Die Martis 12 February 1688/9

The Declaration of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons Assembled at Westminster

Whereas the late King James, the second, by the Assistance of divers Evil Counsellors, Judges, and Ministers, imployed by him did endeavour to Subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion, and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.

1. By assuming and exercising a Power of dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes, and the Execution of Lawes without the Consent of Parliament.

2. By committing and prosecuting diverse worthy Prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed Power.

3. By issuing and causing to be Executed a Commission, under the Great Seale, for erecting a Court called Courte of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes.

4. By leaving Money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative for other Time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament.

5. By raiseing and keeping a standing army within this Kingdom in time of Peace without Consent of Parliament and quartering Souldiers contrary to the Law.

6. By causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both armed and Employed contrary to Law.

7. By violating the freedome of Election of Members to serve in Parliament.

8. By prosecutions in the Courte of King’s Bench for matters and Causes Cognizable only in Parliament And by divers other Arbitrary and illegal Courses.

9. And whereas of late Years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on Juryes in tryalls and, particularly divers Jurors in Tryalls for high Treason which were not freeholders.

10. And excessive Bayle hath been required of persons Committed in Criminal Cases to elude the benefitt of the Lawes made for the liberty of the Subjects.

11. And excessive fynes have been imposed.

12. And illegal and cruell punishments inflicted

13. And several Grants and promises made of fynes and forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied.

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and freedome of this Realme.

And whereas the said late King James the second having abdicated the Government and the throne being thereby vacant.

His Highnesse the Prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make his glorious Instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and Arbitrary Power) Did (by advice of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and divers principall persons of the Commons) Cause Letters to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall being Protestants and other Letters to the several Countyes Citties Universities Burroughs and Cinqe Ports for the chuseing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament to meet and sitt at Westminster upon the two and twentiesth day of January in this Year 1688 in order to such an establishment as that their Religion Lawes and Libertyes might not againe be in danger of being subverted. Upon with Letters Elections having been accordingly made.

And thereupon the said Lords SPirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nations taking into their most serious consideration the best meanes for atteyneing the ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Ancestors in like Case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their antient rights and Liberties, Declare.

1. That the pretended power of suspending of Lawes or the execution of Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parliament is illegal.

2. That the pretended power of dispensing with lawes or the Execution of lawes by regall authority as it has been assumed and exercised of late is illegall.

3. That the Commission for erecting the late Courte of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of life nature are illegall and pernicious.

4. That levying of money for or to the use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without grant of Parliament for longer time or in other manner, than the same is or shall be granted is illegall.

5. That it is the right of Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegall.

6. That the raiseing or keeping a Standing Army within the Kingdom in time of Peace unlesse it be with consent of Parliament is against the Law.

7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Armes for their defence Suitable to their Condition and as allowed by Law.

8. That Elections of Members of Parliament out to be free.

9. That the freedome of Speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Courte or place out of Parliament.

10. That excessive Bayle ought not to be required nor excessive fynes imposed nor cruel and unusuall Punishments inflicted.

11. That Jurors ought to be duley impannelled and returned and Jurors which passé upon men in tryalls for high treasons ought to be freeholders.

12. That all grants and promises of fynes and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegall and void.

13. And that for redress of all greivances and for the amending strengthening and preserving of the Lawes, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claime demand and insist upon all singular the premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or proceedings to the prejudice of the People in any of the said premises ought in any wise to bee drawn hereafter into Consequence or Example.

To which demand of their rights they are particularly Encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange as being the only Meanes for obteyning a full redress and remedy therein.

Having therefore an intire Confidence that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance soe farr advanced by him and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have asserted and from all other attempts upon their Religion Rights and Liberties.

The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons Assembled at Westminster doe Resolve,

That William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange bee and bee declared, King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall dignity of the said Kingdom’s and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princess during their lives and the life of the Survivor of them and that the Sole and full exercise of the Regall Power be only in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse during their Joynt lives And after their deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the heires of the body of the said Princesse: And for default of such Issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke and the heires of her body. And for default of such Issue to their heires of the body of the said Prince of Orange.
And the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and Princesse of Orange to accept the same accordingly.

And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned bee taken by all persons of whom the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them. And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them. And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy bee abrogated.

I A.B. doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and beare true Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. Soe help mee God.
I. A.B. doe sweare That I doe from my heart Abhoure, detest, and Abjure as impious and Hereticall this Damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or Murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever And I doe Declare That noe foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme. Soe held mee God.

It is Ordered By the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons now assembled at Westminster That is declaration be ingrossed in Parliament and inrolled amongst the Rolls of Parliament and Recorded in Chancery.

[no date]
Signed: Jo, Browne, Cleris

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The Law of Nature - Sir William Blackstone, Knight

Excerpts from Commentaries on the Laws of England

Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him on whom he depends as the rule of his conduct; not, indeed, in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle, therefore, has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited.
And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points; conform to his Maker’s will.

This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it will a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion, so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.

Considering the Creator only as a being of infinite power, he was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws; he pleased to his creature, man, however unjust or severe. But, as he is also a being of infinite wisdom, he has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such, among others, are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his duel to which thee general precepts Justinian (a) has reduced the whole doctrine of law.

But if the discovery of these first principles of the law of nature depended only upon the due exertion of right reason, and could not otherwise be obtained than by a chain of metaphysical disquisitions, mankind would have wanted some inducement to have quickened their inquiries and the greater part of the world would have rested content in mental indolence, and ignorance, its inseparable companion. As, therefore, the Creator is a being not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, he has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, boy only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter.
In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness of unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised, but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, “that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness.” This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law; for the several articles into which it is branched in our system, amount to no more than demonstrating that this or that action tends to man’s real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of man real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

But, in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason, whose office is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life, by considering what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness. And if our reasons were always ,as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we would need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understating full of ignorance and error.

This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine Providence, which in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparisons to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity, But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in its present corrupted state; since we found that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than the moral system which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law; because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation depend all human laws; this is to day, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

Grand Jury Indictment Of The Federal Reserve

Defendants ______________________________

Inasmuch as we have issued indictments and subpoenas which the U.S. Attorney and the courts would not act upon, we issue this final indictment of the Federal Reserve and its principals (Board of Governors, Directors of Federal Reserve and Members of the Open Market Committee). This is not done in anger or as an act of disrespect, but still disagreeing with the U.S. Attorney and the courts.

The Grand Jury finds that—The power to print paper money or to issue bills of credit, was never given to the Federal government and it is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution for it to do so.

While the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin” and the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States” were both delegated to the Congress, the power to print money was never given. A proposal was made in the Constitutional convention to give Congress this power and it was defeated by a vote of nine states against, two for. (See Madison’s Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention for August 16, 1787). But the wording of the Constitution itself denies such a power to Congress. It provides that “No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.” This being so, when the Federal government issues irredeemable paper as a tender in payment of debts it compels them to violate this prohibition. Inasmuch as the laws dealing with lawful money are still intact (gold and silver coin) the federal reserve, in ignoring these laws is also violating statutes.

“No state shall…pass any law…impairing the obligation of contract.” By compelling the states to use irredeemable paper as a tender in payment of debts, Congress thereby causes the states to impair the obligation of contracts to the extent of billions of dollars each year. This can be seen by noting the effect which inflation has upon people. According to the Statistical Abstract of 1980 there was at the end of 1979 $3,222 Billion of Life Insurance in force. Assuming an annual inflation rate of just 10%, holders of policies are systematically robbed each year of over $322 Billion. The combined CPI for the past five years totaled 48.6% inflation (1977, 6.5%; 1978, 7.7%; 1979, 11.3%, 1980, 14.4%; 1981, 8.7%). Life insurance in force averaged approximately $3,024 Billion per year. 48.6% X $3,024 Billion = $1,469 Billion, or nearly $1.5 Trillion impairment of insurance in force. Holders of the national debt would be robbed of over $100 Billion at just 10% inflation annually. This is not to mention the loss being suffered by old age pensions, retired people, people with bonds, savings accounts, and holders of mortgages, etc. The states, by ignoring their constitutional charge are guilty of participating with the Federal Reserve in impairing contracts, violating citizens civil and property rights, all without due process of law for citizens. Why then do governments leave good money and go to bad? One reason is that it enables them to effectively eliminate (assuming a 10% inflation rate) 10% of their obligations annually and to pay off long term bonds with severely devalued dollars, except as offset by excessive interest.

The purpose of the Constitution’s provision is to protect the right of private property including contract rights, not to impair them.
The Grand Jury finds that—The founding fathers interpreted the Constitution as requiring the use of gold and silver coin as the only legal tender which could be used in the nation.

It is a fact that for the first seventy years of its existence, the nation was on a silver and gold standard. This is all the evidence one would ever need as to the type of monetary system intended for this nation by those who drafted and adopted the United States Constitution. It was not until the great crisis brought on by the Civil War that the North, in an attempt to provide additional financing, for the first time issued “bills of credit” and made them a tender in payment of debts.

An irredeemable currency is directly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which was designed to protect contract rights. There is a specific provision contained in the Constitution which says: “No state shall…pass any law…impairing the obligation of contract.” This same law should apply to the federal government. By printing worthless currency and compelling state courts to use it as a legal tender in payment of debts, it forces them to disobey the prohibition. Recognizing the danger of allowing state governments to pass laws destroying contract rights and also desiring that states should act honorable, this prohibition was adopted. Morally and legally, it is equally applicable to the Federal.

If this matter was so plain to those who drafted the Constitution, how did it happen that we use neither gold nor silver today but only an irredeemable paper and a debased coinage? The answer is found in the fact that when a nation gets into serious trouble, those in government tend to ignore the restraints of the Constitution, and the people, under the stress of the times tend to permit it.

Thus it happened that in the desperate days of the Civil War, a sorely beset Congress first authorized the issue of paper money by the Federal Government. The term “greenbacks” was used to describe this issue and they were made a legal tender in payment of debts both public and private. Of course the constitutionality of this act was tested in the United States Supreme Court which held in a five to three decision that paper money was unconstitutional.

This victory for sound money did not last long however because shortly thereafter when the personnel of the Court had been changed by the addition of two new members, another case involving essentially the same issue was brought before it, and this time in a five to four majority reversed the prior decision. It is a matter for reflection that the decision of a single Court Justice can affect the destiny of an entire nation.

Eventually the issue of greenbacks was redeemed in gold and silver coin as was always intended, and the nation returned to a hard money system which continued until the money manipulation policies of the Federal Reserve created the Great Depression. It was during the agony of that crisis that government once again ignored the Constitution, and a confused and distraught nation failed to restrain them. A prior Congress passed an administration measure under which the use by citizens of gold as money was made a criminal offense, the gold of the citizens was confiscated and paper was issued in its place. The private Federal Reserve banks in 1934 issued to themselves the only gold redeemable certificates—laying claim to the gold just taken from the citizens. Once more the matter came before a prior Supreme Court—and once more in another 5 to 4 decision the Court upheld Congress. This opened the door to an unlimited issue of paper money for the citizens which has continued ever since.
The change in our national fiscal affairs since the hard money system was abandoned to the federal reserve is reflected in the following approximated figures:

1933 1982
National Debt $27 Billion $1,000 Billion
Annual National Budget $5 Billion $750 Billion
*Gold and Prices, George F. Warren & Frank A. Person, John Welsey & Sons (1935), Page 138.

The Grand Jury Finds—Why it is so important that we use the precious metals rather than paper for money. The virtue of gold and silver is that governments or private credit monopolies cannot destroy citizens contract rights.

Gold and silver are perfectly suited to serve as money. Being largely impervious to decay, their value is not destroyed by the passage of time. Also they are probably the most versatile of all metals and this intrinsic worth together with their natural beauty has preserved their value in every nation and in every age. Every civilization has found them desirable and sought after them and it is this fact which makes them more stable than any other standard of value. Governments and private credit monopolies cannot manipulate nor corrupt this standard without such coming to the immediate attention of the people—and it has. Gold and silver have very distinctive physical characteristics which makes it relatively easy to observe a reduction in the weight or size of coins.

One ofttimes hears it said that there is not enough gold in the world to serve our monetary needs today—that the demand for money has grown so enormously since the Constitution was adopted that the monetary system it provided for will no longer suffice. The first answer to this argument is that the Constitution does not provide for a gold standard, but for a standard of gold and silver. Both metals were decreed as legal tender.

A second answer to the shortage argument is that it is utterly wrong to assume that we need a stock of gold and silver equal to the amount of money in circulation. We need only a small fraction of that amount. The truth of this fact can be seen by noting that the size of our gold stocks when we were on the gold standard between 1900 and 1933 was generally less than 10% (Statistical Abstract of the U.S. [1937]. Pages 163 & 200) of the total money and bank deposits. The reason why such a relatively small amount of the precious metals will suffice is easily seen.

Imagine, if you can, everyone who has a claim for money simultaneously demanding that his debtor pay in gold and silver coin. Such a situation is unthinkable, especially when it is realized that we are all debtor and creditors at the same time. The great majority of us cannot afford to invest in the precious metals. When we have a claim for money we want to turn that claim into food, clothing, services, etc. as soon as possible without going through the cumbersome and useless process of converting it into gold and silver first.

But the scarcity argument is seen in its most ridiculous light when it is remembered that it is this very scarcity which makes it possible to use gold and silver as an unchanging standard of value. If they were to become as plentiful as, say paper, they could not possibly retain their value in the eyes of the people. It is the very fact that they are scarce together with the fact that they have intrinsic worth, which preserves their value from generation to generation.

On the other hand, paper has none of the characteristics needed as a standard of value because it has no intrinsic worth. This is not to say we should not use paper as a medium of exchange to represent a claim for money. Paper is certainly convenient to use for transferring claims to gold and silver and there is nothing against using it for this purpose. Common sense dictates that we do so. There is no danger in using paper as a claim or an evidence of ownership of something of value. The great danger—and indeed the terrible harm—comes from making it irredeemable—in asserting that the paper has value rather than that it represents a claim for some commodity which has value.

The Grand Jury Finds that—Irredeemable paper money is the fundamental cause of inflation, that this irredeemability is a violation of statutes dealing with lawful money and the money of account of the U.S. The federal reserve itself continued to publicly show its recognition of these statutes into the late 1960’s by printing on its notes we used as money that they were redeemable in lawful money. Statutes and the Constitution did not change, only their printing the recognition of their still existing obligation to redeem in lawful money changed.


The Grand Jury Charges that:
By issuing and circulating irredeemable paper as legal tender in payment of debts the Federal Reserve Bank in this district, in concert with other Federal Reserve Banks under authority of a prior congress is compelling the states to violate that provision of the Constitution which forbids them to make “anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.”


The Grand Jury Charges that:
By issuing and circulating irredeemable paper money as legal tender in payment of debts, the Federal Reserve Bank in this district, in concert with other Federal Reserve Banks is causing the states to violate that provision of the Constitution which forbids them to impair the obligations of contract.


The Grand Jury Charges that:
By issuing and circulating irredeemable paper as legal tender in payment of debts the Federal Reserve Bank in this district, in concert with other Federal Reserve Banks under authority of a prior congress is using something other than what the Constitution allows.


The Grand Jury Charges that:
In 1980 the FRB in this district in concert with agents and employees of other Federal Reserve banks did issue and put in circulation Federal Reserve notes in an amount in excess of $1,025,547,000 from the branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, some of which were also issued and put in circulation through the Salt Lake City Branch; and provisions of 12 U.S.C. 411 require that the said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national banks and member banks and Federal Reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues, and they shall be redeemed in lawful money of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve Bank, and as defined at 12 U.S.C. 152, the terms “lawful money” and “lawful money of the United States” shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States, and 18 U.S.C. 334, crimes and criminal procedure requires that whosoever, being a Federal Reserve Agent, or an agent or employee of such Federal Reserve Agent, or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, issues or puts in circulation any Federal Reserve notes, without complying with or in violation of the provisions of law regulating the issuance and circulation of Federal Reserve notes shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both, and the defendants being members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or agents or employees thereof, did issue and put in circulation Federal Reserve notes without complying with and in violation of the provisions of 12 U.S.C. 411, and that such Federal Reserve notes are not obligations of the United States as required at 12 U.S.C. 411 and as defined at 18 U.S.C. 8, and that such notes were issued and were not redeemed, are not now being redeemed nor can they be redeemed in lawful money of the United States which is defined in 12 U.S.C. 152 as gold and silver coin of the United States as required in 12 U.S.C. 411, and therefore the said notes were issued and put in circulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 334.

/s/ Hans V. Andersen Jr.
Foreman of the Grand Jury
U.S. Attorney

Friday, September 18, 2009

The Creature from Jekyll Island

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln warned:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign…until wealth is aggregated into few hands, and the republic is destroyed.”

John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York City declared on March 22, 1911:
“The real menace of our republic is the invisible government which, like an octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city, state, and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses, generally referred to as ‘international bankers.’”

Dr. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University made the following comments in his book "Tragedy and Hope":
He said, “it is quite impossible to understand the history of the twentieth century without some understanding of the role played by money in domestic affairs and foreign affairs…”

Quigley quotes Walter Rathenau who controlled German General Electric Company who stated in 1909:
“Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves.”

Furthermore, Quigley declares:
“The power of investment bankers over government rests on a number of factors, of which the most significant, perhaps, is the need of governments to issue short-term treasury bills as well as long-term government bonds. Just as businessmen go to commercial banks for current capital advances to smooth over the discrepancies between their irregular and intermittent incomes and their periodic and persistent outgoes (such as monthly rents, annual mortgage payments, and weekly wages), so a government has to go to merchant bankers (or institutions controlled by them) to tide over the shallow places caused by irregular tax receipts. As experts in government bonds, the international bankers not only handled the necessary advances but provided advice to government officials and, on many occasions, placed their own members in official posts for varied periods to deal with special problems…"

In 1865 Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared,
“‘The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned.’”

The early machinations of this ruling elite is summarized by Quigley:
“The history of the last century slows, as we shall see later, that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally.”

He openly identifies the banking families of which he is speaking: Baring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, Rockefeller, Rothschild, and Morgan.

During the period between 1880 and 1933; the tycoons of “Big Banking” and “Big Business” were established in America into:
“two pinnacles of economic power, of which one, centered in New York, was headed by J. P. Morgan and Company, and the other, in Ohio, was headed by the Rockefeller family. When these two cooperated, as they generally did, they could influence the economic life of the country to a large degree and could almost control its political life, at least on the Federal level.”

The earliest mammoth banking family empire was founded by Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743 – 1812) of Frankfurt, Germany. One of his five sons remained in Frankfurt to administrate the home base while the other four sons established banks in London, Paris, Vienna, and Naples.
Quigley states, the “male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces.” This policy was followed “to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers.”

Economist Stuart Crane explains how the family amassed a fortune financing governments during the 19th Century.
“If you look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a ‘balance of power.’ With every re-shuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France, or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished.”

According to Gustavus Myers in "History of the Great American Fortunes" , in 1836, President Andrew Jackson abolished the Central Bank, through which the Rothschilds were exerting their control.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was approached by August Belmont, an agent of the Rothschild family in the North. Lincoln refused their exorbitant rate of interest to finance the Union. He ordered the Treasury Department to print $450 million “greenbacks.” Greenbacks are legal tender "United States Notes" which are interest free. Lincoln wisely decided that the Union would owe the money to itself. The Erlanger family was the agent of the Rothschild family in the South. Incidentally, the last president to issue "United States Notes" was John F. Kennedy.

International bankers cloaked their goals and ideals with a garment of a “righteous cause” at the close of the 19th Century. According to Dr. Quigley; in 1870, John Ruskin became professor of fine arts at Oxford University and hit Oxford “like an earthquake.”

Pat Brooks declares:
“Ruskin expounded the moral duty of a privileged ruling class [of England] to extend socialistic reform to the underprivileged of the world.”

Carroll Quigley declares: “He told them that they were the possessors of a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency, and self-discipline but that this tradition could not be saved, and did not deserve to be saved, unless it could be extended to the lower classes in England itself and to the non-English masses throughout the world…Ruskin’s message had a sensational impact. His inaugural lecture was copied out in longhand by undergraduate Cecil Rhodes, who kept it with him for thirty years…With financial help from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as DeBeers Consolidated Gold Fields. In the middle of the 1890’s Rhodes had a personal income of at least a million pounds sterling a year (then about five million dollars) which was spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that he was usually overdrawn on his account. These purposes centered on his desire to federate the English-speaking peoples and to bring all habitable portions of the world under their control.”

Cecil Rhodes and journalist – reformer William T Stead organized a secret society on February 5, 1891. Rhodes was the leader while Stead, Bret (Lord Escher) , and Alfred (Lord) Milner were the executive committee. Alfred (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey and others became the ‘Circle of Initiates.’ Originally, the outer circle was known as “Association of Helpers” and was reorganized by Milner as the “Round Table.”

Milner was governor-general and high commissioner of South Africa. He recruited like minded men from Oxford idealists who became known as Milner’s Kindergarten and existed until 1910. Semi-secret Round Table groups were organized by these idealists in British dependencies and the United States. As of 1976, eight of these groups still exist. The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) was founded by them in 1919. Sir Abe Baily and the Astor family, who owned The Times, supported the RIIA.

Colonel Edward Mandel House, companion and advisor of President Woodrow Wilson, hosted a meeting of Round Table representatives in Paris 13 days after the Versailles Treaty was presented to the Plenary Committee. The American branch of the Round Table was organized as a separate entity on May 19, 1919. Colonel House wrote the charter of the Council on Foreign Relations by 1921.

The Institute of Pacific Relations, a similar network of organizations, was established in twelve countries of the Pacific region after 1925.
Dr. Quigley states that in these there were:
“units in each British dominion existing on an interlocking basis with the Round Table Group and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the same country.”

A network of international bankers brought about two horrendous changes into America long before the CFR and the IPR were created. J.P Morgan precipitated the “Panic of 1907” after spreading rumors that Knickerbocker Bank and Trust Company of America was insolvent. Morgan’s rival banks were ruined while other banks were brought into Morgan’s influence and control. Paul Warburg came to American with his brother Felix Warburg in 1902. Paul Warburg was vice-president of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company and engineered a central banking system. Warburg used the Panic of 1902 to emphasize the “need” for a central banking system. Morgan promoted the panic for his own selfish economic interests as Warburg promoted the need for “bank reform” by lecturing and writing on the subject. He received a salary of half a million dollars from Kuhn Loeb while writing and lecturing to promote “bank reform” and a “central banking system” he engineered. Warburg had United States Senator Nelson Aldrich, “Morgan’s floor broker in the Senate,” working toward their goals. Nelson Aldrich’s daughter Abby married John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Consequently, Nelson Aldrich was the grandfather of David Rockefeller; chairman of the Council of Foreign Relations, president of Chase Manhattan Bank, and founder of the Trilateral Commission. David Rockefeller’s brother Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller was vice-president of the United States in 1976.

Nelson Aldrich worked tirelessly to create a revived “central bank” which President Andrew Jackson destroyed. He was the Republican “whip” in the Senate and chairman of the National Monetary Commission. The NMC was a special committee of Congress created for the purpose of making recommendations to Congress for banking reform legislation. The American public was concerned about what was happening in the banking industry. Banks were folding and people were losing their investments through broken promises banks made to protect depositor’s assets. Aldrich spent over $300,000 of taxpayer’s money to fulfill the aspirations and goals of international bankers. Americans were concerned about the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few large New York Banks on Wall Street. In those days, the concentration of wealth in a few large banks was termed “the money trust.” Various politicians had been elected to office on their campaign promise to break the grasp of “the money trust.” President Woodrow Wilson was among the politicians who campaigned on this issue but was actually hand-picked, financed, and surrounded by associates and advisors of “the money trust.” The public wasn’t aware of this at that time in history. One who campaigned against the money trust could most assuredly be elected. Aldrich was an important business associate of J.P. Morgan and the father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller Jr.

In November of 1910, a secret meeting of the Morgan - Rockefeller banking officers was held at a social club on Jekyll Island, Georgia. This was a social club and it was called "The Jekyll Island Club." Walk through the downstairs corridors and you will discover a door which identified with a brass plaque that declares: "In this room the Federal Reserve System was created."

Senator Nelson Aldrich sent his private railroad car to the railroad station in New Jersey and there it was in readiness for the arrival of himself and six other men who were told to come under conditions of great secrecy.
Secretary of the Treasury Abraham Piatt Andrew was the second most important man at the meeting. He later became a congressman with important internal ties to banking circle.

Frank A. Vanderlip was President of National City Bank of New York which was the largest bank in America. Vanderlip represented the banking and financial interests of William Rockefeller and international investment banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Vanderlip represented the largest most powerful banks in America.

Henry P. Davidson was the senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company. Incidentally, for those persons acquainted with the game “Monopoly;” the little fat capitalist with the handlebar mustache and cigar was a satirical caricature of J.P. Morgan.

Charles D. Norton was the President of the 1st National Bank of New York.

Benjamin Strong was head of J.P. Morgan’s Banker’s Trust Company. Three years later when the Federal Reserve Act was passed; Strong became the first head of the Federal Reserve System.

Paul M. Warburg was born in Germany and immigrated to America becoming a naturalized citizen. He was probably the most important man at the meeting because of his European banking knowledge. Paul M. Warburg was one of the wealthiest men in the world during the era in which he lived. Warburg was a partner in Kuhn Loeb & Company and also represented the interests of the banking dynasty of Rothschild family of England and France. Paul Warburg maintained close working relationship with the Rothschild’s throughout his entire career. His brother and closest liaison, Max Warburg was head of Warburg banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands. Persons familiar with the syndicated comic strip “Little Orphan Annie” recognize that “Daddy Warbucks” in the infamous comic strip is a satirical caricature of Paul M. Warburg. Everyone in that era was aware of the satirical caricature.

These seven men created the Federal Reserve System and represented ¼ of the entire wealth of the world.

An article written by Frank Vanderlip, a member of the group who attended the meeting, was published in "Saturday Evening Post", February 9, 1935, after the ratification of the Federal Reserve Act.
"I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible to the railroad terminal on the New Jersey littoral of the Hudson where Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness attached to the rear-end of a train to the south. Once aboard the private car we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. We addressed one another as Ben, Paul, Nelson and Abe. Davison and I adopted even deeper disguises abandoning our first names. On the theory that we were always right, he became Wilbur and I became Orville after those two aviation pioneers the Wright brothers. The servants and train crew may have known the identities of one or two of us, but they did not know all and it was the names of all printed together that would've made our mysterious journey significant in Washington, in Wall Street, even in London. Discovery we knew simply must not happen."

They received the following instructions:

Should they arrive at the station at the same time they were to pretend that they didn’t know each other.

Newspaper reporters might recognize them and ask question so they were instructed to avoid them at all costs. Suspicions would certainly arise if two or three of them were identified which would provoke questions.

One of the men carried a large black case that contained a shotgun. In the event that he might be questioned; he would respond by saying he was going on a duck hunting trip. We learn from his biography that he neither owned the gun nor ever fired a gun in his life. He borrowed the gun to aid in his deception.

Servants on board were not to know the identity of the guests on board the train. There was fear that servants might talk about the excursion which may be leaked to the press.

The seven men traveled for two days and a night aboard Aldrich’s private car traveling a journey of 1,000 miles to Brunswick, Georgia. They took a ferry across the inland straits arriving on Jekyll Island. For the next nine days they sat at a table in an a closed room to discuss the details of what became the Federal Reserve System. After they accomplished their objective; they returned to New York.
Why the all of these particular elements to maintain secrecy? What was wrong with a group of private bankers attending meetings to discuss economics and proposed banking legislation?

Vanderlip, who attended the secret meeting, explains the reason and provides the answer to the puzzling behavior.
"If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress."

The purpose of the National Monetary Commission was to propose legislation to break the grip of “the money trust.” Aldrich was the chairman of the committee to propose appropriate legislation to break “the money trust.” The Aldrich bill was the purported legislation that was to break the grip of the money trust. The men whom Aldrich assembled at Jekyll Island were “the money trust.” Had this fact been known from the outset; the Federal Reserve System would not exist today. Vanderlip said the proposed legislation would have had no chance to be passed into law by Congress. Therefore, it was essential for their secret to remain a secret and continues to remain so to this day.

Anybody could go to a library and discover the truth but truth isn’t taught in the classrooms of our schools and universities.
Edward Griffin states: “We don't know any of this in the official literature from the Federal Reserve System because that was like asking the fox to build the henhouse and install the security system.”

The creation of the Federal Reserve System in secrecy by “the Money trust” is very important. Here were the giants of their era: J.P Morgan, the Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, the Rothschilds and Warburgs which were the major competitors in the field of investment and banking.

Normally, they would be competing against each other for dominance in New York, Paris, and London and in every financial market throughout the world. These competitors were sitting at a table making an agreement of some sort.
In this era of American history an extremely significant fundamental change in ideology was happening in business.

In the past, American free enterprise competition had been operating under the principles of private enterprise which caused America to surpass all other nations. At this point of history, a shift begins to happen; American free enterprise was departing from competition to monopoly. This is the era of the cartel. Throughout the fifteen year period prior to the secret meeting on Jekyll Island; investment groups were coming together engaging in joint ventures rather than competitive ventures. The Jekyll Island meeting was the culmination of trends where they came together deciding not to compete but to form a cartel.

The Aldrich bill establishing the Federal Reserve System was introduced in the Senate of the United States Congress.

“Colonel” Edward Mandel House is regarded by some historians as the real president during Wilson’s administration. “Colonel” House was Wilson’s chief advisor and confidant who guided the creation of the Federal Reserve System and graduated income tax into national policy.

The bill did not pass because the connections between Aldrich and the bankers were so obvious. The Morgan – Rockefeller – Kuhn, Loeb banking interests did not surrender their ambitions. Morgan backed ex-President Theodore Roosevelt; thus making the presidential election a three – way race for the incumbent William Howard Taft who opposed the Aldrich bill. The Progressive Party was a front to split the Republican vote which would assure Taft’s defeat. Consequently, Woodrow Wilson was elected president who, “for nearly twenty years…had moved in the shadow of Wall Street.”

The 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution was adopted on February 3, 1913. The Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress on December 22 while many of the Senators were on Christmas recess.

Both, the “centralized bank” and “graduated income tax” are planks of Karl Marx’ Communist Manifesto.
Cartel: “It is a group of independently owned businesses which come together for the purpose of reducing or eliminating competition between themselves to enhance their profit margin or to secure their positions in the market. They do this by various means one of which is price fixing--no competition on price.”

One might divide a nation into regions of the north and south. One may produce the “gizmo” and another may produce the “widget” and they choose not to compete; perhaps even sharing patents and processes. Consequently, they eliminate competition between themselves. Layer upon layer of agreements are added which encase themselves in a cartel structure “insofar as the market is concerned even though within that grouping [they] are separately owned.”

This is as true for banking cartels as it is with any other industry. Hence, the nature of the Federal Reserve System, when examined in the historical setting, is that it is a cartel even though is masquerades as a government agency protected by unconstitutional law.

Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. (1859 -1924) was the father of the famous aviator and a Congressman (R-MN). Congressman Lindbergh declared in his book "Banking and Currency and the Money Trust", 1913:
“The Act (the Federal Reserve Act, Dec. 23rd 1913) establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs the Bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized…The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency Bill.”

The Federal Reserve Cartel has been dangerously operating as lava tubes beneath the surface of the ground in Hawaii; carefully concealed from the American citizen. Occasionally, a hole will break open to the surface of the earth and one can actually see rivers of lava flowing a few feet beneath one’s feet.

The third ingredient is the most important when we realize that the cartel is in partner ship with government. Cartels need the force of law to enforce upon the citizen, the agreements of the cartel. When partnerships are formed there must be benefits to the parties.

We must examine in detail the mechanism by which the Federal Reserve “creates” money. Griffin calls the mechanism the “Mandrake Mechanism” named for the comic-book character of the 1940s. Mandrake could create something out of nothing; wave his cape and it would return into the void.

The Federal Reserve is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.
The Federal Reserve System is a cartel operating against the public interest.
The Federal Reserve System utilizes the supreme instrument of usury.
The Federal Reserve System generates the most unfair tax.
The Federal Reserve System encourages war.
The Federal Reserve System destabilizes the economy.

I enumerate the fruits of these two titanic policy changes over the past several decades till 1976:

Two world wars!
Two Asian wars!
A financial crash!
A great depression!
Numerous recessions!
Incurable inflation!
An unconstitutional direct unapportioned confiscatory tax!
Loss of incentive for free enterprise not in the orbit of multinationals!
Subversion of government bureaucracies, Congress, and the Executive branch staff!
Radicalized Supreme Court decisions!
Liberal bias in the media!
Tax-free foundations fund and airing information favorable to socialism and world government!

Once American ship of state sailed through the gate she has been listing to the left ever since.

European Enlightenment - not a Primary Influence

In 1688, the political changes that occurred in England were bloodless. I do not discount earlier civil wars in England; but the decisive change that occurred in England in 1688 was bloodless. Secular historians have recorded this era as the “Bloodless Revolution of 1688”

William III and Mary became the monarchs of England during the “bloodless revolution.” It became clearly evident that Parliament was not merely a junior partner but an equal partner with the Crown. The “bloodless revolution” brought about deliberate control of the monarchy within specific legal bounds.

The French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) was known as the “Father of the Enlightenment.” Voltaire was profoundly influenced by the results of the “bloodless revolution” while he was exiled to England (1726 – 1729).

Voltaire publically expressed the ensuing freedom of public expression and the impact of the Bloodless Revolution. In his “Letters Concerning the English Nation” (1733) he wrote:

“The English are the only people upon earth who have been able to prescribe limits to the power of Kings by resisting them, and who, by a series of struggles, have at last established…that wise government where the prince is all powerful to do good, and at the same time is restrained from committing evil…and where the people share in the government without confusion.”

Voltaire’s remarks were flattering but contrast the impact of the Bloodless Revolution with the terrible conditions in France. When the French attempted to reproduce English conditions, which Voltaire admired, without the Reformation base, the results of Voltaire’s Enlightenment base produced a bloodbath! A rapid breakdown of society eventually led to the authoritarian rule of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821). These five words sum up the Utopian dream of the Enlightenment: reason, nature, happiness, progress, and liberty.

Please understand that when I speak of “humanism;” I am neither referring to being humanitarian nor the study of the “humanities.” I use the term “humanism” as the Greek philosopher Protagoras declared: “Man is the measure of all things.”

The humanistic elements which rose during the Renaissance came to high tide during the Enlightenment. During the Enlightenment; Man started from himself absolutely. The humanist elements which were present in the Renaissance stand in astute contrast to the Reformation.

The Enlightenment was the total antithesis of the Reformation. The Enlightenment and the Reformation stood for and upon absolutely different things in an absolute way.

The Reformation and the Enlightenment produced different results.

Men of the Enlightenment believed that society and mankind were perfectible. Even during the height of the “Reign of Terror” men of the Enlightenment continued to believe in this romanticism. Voltaire sketched out four epochs of history; believing that the era in which he lived was the zenith.

Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794) mathematician and member of Voltaire’s circle of philosophers wrote "Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind" (1793 – 1794). He hid in a garret in Paris and spoke of nine stages of progress while hiding from Robespierre’s secret police.

Marquis de Condorcet declared: “We have witnessed the development of a new doctrine which is to deliver the final blow to the already tottering structure of prejudice. It is the idea of the limitless perfectibility of the human species…”

He escaped from Paris but was recognized, arrested, and imprisoned; dying in custody as he waited for death on the guillotine.

If the men of the Enlightenment were religious men; they were deists. Deists believe in a god who created the world but had no further contact with the world at the moment. Their god did not reveal truth to men and if he existed the Deist believed that he was silent.

Voltaire demanded no speech from God except after the earthquake which occurred in Lisbon in 1755. Illogically, he complained of his non-intervention. The deists of the Enlightenment, particularly in France, had no foundation but their own finiteness.

England, profoundly influenced by the Reformation, had a Christian base. The French men of the Enlightenment looked across the English Channel trying to reproduce English conditions but without the Reformation base.

The consequences of their position ended with a massacre and the authoritarian rule of Napoleon.

The first phase of the liberal bourgeois plan of the French Revolution was at its zenith in June of 1789.

The liberal bourgeois plan was depicted by Jacques-Louis David (1748 – 1825) in his painting "The Oath of the Tennis Court". The members of the national assembly swore to establish a new constitution. A pure humanist theory of rights was the foundation which they consciously embraced. On August 26, 1789, the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" was issued by the national assemble.

It had nothing on which to rest, no sufficient foundation but their limited finiteness.

The “Supreme Being” referred to in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, was actually “the sovereignty of the nation.” This “sovereignty of the nation” was the general will of the people.

There was not only a sharp contrast between the French Revolution and the English “Bloodless Revolution.” There was an astute difference with what the Declaration of Independence produced in thirteen colonies that became the United States.

The American Revolution had a Reformation base; the French Revolution did not.

The National Constituent Assembly took two years to draft a constitution (1789 – 1791). Within a year it was DEAD. The Second French Revolution was now in motion which led to the “Reign of Terror.” During the Second French Revolution; the revolutionary leaders themselves were hunted down and killed.

The French revolutionaries made their position apparent. They changed the calendar calling the year 1792 the year “one.” They destroyed several things of the past; even suggesting the destruction of the Cathedral of Chartres. In Notre Dame of Paris, the Cathedral of Chartres and other churches throughout the nation; the French revolutionaries proclaimed the goddess of Reason. In Paris, the actress Demoiselle Candeille, personifying the goddess, was carried shoulder high into the cathedral by men dressed as Romans.

The men of the Enlightenment in France threw aside the Christian base and heritage which produced the English conditions they admired. They looked back to the old pre-Christian era of history.

Voltaire hung a picture on the wall at the foot of his bed in his home at Ferney. The picture was hung on the wall so it was the first thing he saw each day. The painting was of the goddess Diana wearing a new crescent moon on her head and beneath her feet was a larger moon. The goddess Diana is reaching down to help mankind.

In September of 1792, the massacre began with some 1,300 prisoners who were murdered. Before the blood bath was over, the government and its agents murdered 40,000 people. Tragically, many of those murdered were peasants.

The revolutionary leader Maximilian Robespierre (1758 – 1794) was executed in July 1794. As in the Russian revolution, the French revolutionaries had two options, anarchy or repression. The “Terror” did not come from outside the system but from within. The Terror was produced by the system.

Lenin wrote in a book titled “The Lessons of the Paris Commune;” before the Leninists took control of the Russian revolution. He thoughtfully analyzed why the Paris Commune was defeated in 1871. His fundamental conclusion was that the French revolutionaries didn’t kill enough of their enemies. When he eventually came to power; he acted according to his personal analysis of the French Revolution.

The parallels between the French Revolution and the Russian revolution shared the same foundation. Both rested on the same philosophical base. Our universities likened the French revolution with the earlier American Revolution. Although there were crosscurrents between American and France; the similarities are actually between the English “Bloodless Revolution” and the American Revolution.

In sharp contrast to this fact are the similarities between the French Revolution and the Russian revolution. In 1799 Napoleon arrived in France to establish an authoritarian regime. Lenin arrived as an authoritarian elite who usurped control and rule in Russia.

A different dynamic was involved in the political destiny of regions of Europe structurally influenced by the 16th Century restoration of Biblical Christianity of the Reformation. There is a sharp contrast between the East and South and Northern Europe. There were local influences, but the inspiration for most revolutionary changes in the south of Europe was a copy of freedoms gained in Northern Europe.

In Italy, Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807- 1882) gleaned his ideas from Northern Europe but brought them into the Italian peninsula by force. In Spain the Inquisition continued in into the eighteenth century. Persecution and lack of freedom there continue up unto our own day.

The American Revolution was not created by the political, social, and theological philosophies of the Enlightenment. Historically, the American Revolution was the antithesis of the French Revolution.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Separation: Examination of the Record

If Thomas Jefferson promoted a “separation of church and state” as it is currently propagated by educators, national news media, and contemporary courts; one should be able to verify this through an examination of America’s history. I have already produced historic evidence that the current position is ignorant of American history.

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson wrote at the occasion of the Kentucky Resolution:
“No power over the freedom of religion… [is] delegated to the United States Constitution.”

The Congress of the United States passed into law the Northwest Ordinance on August 4, 1789. It has previously been passed into law under the Articles of Confederation. The United States Annotated Code, establishing the requirements for territories who desired to become states, lists the Northwest Ordinance among the most significant governmental instruments. President George Washington signed the Ordinance into law on August 7, 1789 during the same period the First Amendment was being formulated.
Article III "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

On April 30, 1802, Thomas Jefferson signed the enabling act for Ohio to beome a state. The act which Jefferson signed declared that government in this new state “not be repugnant to the [Northwest] Ordinance.”

President Jefferson recommended that the Congress of the United States pass a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians on December 3, 1803. The annual support of a Catholic missionary priest of $100 was included in the treaty which would be supplied through the Federal treasury. In 1806 and 1807 two similar treaties were made with the Wyandotte and Cherokee tribes. A 1787 act of Congress was extended three times by Jefferson in which special lands were designated:
“For the sole use of Christian Indians and Moravian Brethren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.”

Jefferson wrote the following letter to Abigail Adams:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them…But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

Jefferson signed bills appropriating financial support of chaplains in Congress and the armed services. He signed the Articles of War, April 10th 1806 which includes the following statement:
“Earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently attend divine services.”

It is most fascinating to discover that Jefferson actually anticipated with fear the current unorthodox trends in our courts that are not pursuant to the course the framers of our Constitution established.

September 6, 1819, Jefferson wrote:
“The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Jefferson wrote to William Jarvis on September 6, 1820:
“You seem…to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so…and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

In 1821, Jefferson wrote to Mr. Hammond:
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in…the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.”

In 1983, Judge Brevard Hand quoted United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story who clarified the original meaning of the First Amendment.
“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects (denominations) and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government”

Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Country, 544 F. Supp. 1104 (S.D. Ala. 1983)

Warren E. Burger (1907- ) Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court delivered the court’s opinion concerning chaplains opening Legislative sessions with prayer.
“The men who wrote the First Amendment religion clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that amendment…the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.”

“It can hardly be thought that in the same week the members of the first Congress voted to appoint and pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment... (that) they intended to forbid what they had just declared acceptable."

“(Chaplains and prayer) are deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”

In 1985 case of Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668, 669-670 (1985), Chief Justice Warren Burger upheld the city of Pawtucket, R. I. who did not violate the Constitution by displaying a Nativity scene. He emphatically declared that Presidential orders and proclamations from Congress have designated Christmas as a national holiday in religious terms since 1789.
“The city of Pawtucket, R.I., annually erects a Christmas display in a park…The crèche (nativity) display is sponsored by the city to celebrate the Holiday recognized by Congress and national tradition and to depict the origins of that Holiday; these are legitimate secular purposes…The crèche…is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion than the congressional and executive recognition of the origins of Christmas….”

“It would be ironic if…the crèche in the display, as part of a celebration of an event acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, the Executive Branch, Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries, would so ‘taint’ the exhibition as to render it violative of the Establishment Clause. To forbid the use of this one passive symbol…would be an overreaction contrary to this Nation’s history.”

“There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life….The Constitution does not require a complete separation of church and state. It affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions and forbids hostility towards any.”

In 1985,William Hubbs Rehnquist (1924- ), as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, stated the case Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38,99:
“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history…The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years.”
“There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation (between church and state)…The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”

Justice Joseph Story declared in his commentary on the First Amendment’s original meaning:
“The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects (denominations) and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.”

Congress of the United States, March 27, 1854, report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
“What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist. There never was as established religion without all these…”

“At the adoption of the Constitution…every State…provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government…”

“Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people.

"Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect (denomination). Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the (Christian) sects to the exclusion of others."

"If (Christianity) must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, - without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices."

"In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."

Congress of the United States of America, January 19, 1853. The following selections are from a report by Mr. Badger which was part of a Congressional investigation of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The (First Amendment) clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion.’ What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country …endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, - such law would be a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion…”

“They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit “an establishment of religion” such as the English Church presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or jealously of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people…”
“They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.”

“In the law, Sunday is a ‘dies non;’ …The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits…”

“Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government…”

“Here is a recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but of the Christian Sabbath, in exclusion of the Jewish Sabbath or Mohammedan Sabbath…the recognition of the Christian Sabbath (by the Constitution) is complete and perfect.”

“We are a Christian people…not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay due regard to Christianity.”

William Orville Douglas (1898-1980), Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In the 1952 case of Zorach v. Caluson, 343 US 306 307 313, Justice Douglas declared:
“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State, Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other.”

“That is the common sense of the manner. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other – hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly…”
“Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution.”

“Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamation making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; “so help me God” in our courtroom oaths – these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies, would be flouting the First Amendment.”

“We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being…No constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition among sects…”

“A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court.’”
“We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

Supreme Court of Maryland, 1799, in the case Runkel v. Winermiller ruled:
“Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equal entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”

The Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts, 1838 Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 37 Mass. (20 Pick) 206,216-217 1838. The case involved a Universalist who claimed the right of “freedom of the press” as his defense for publishing libelous and defamatory remarks about Christianity and God. The Supreme Court delivered its decision, declaring that ‘freedom of press’ was not a license to print without restraint.
“According to the argument…every act, however injurious or criminal, which can be committed by the use of language may be committed…if such language is printed. Not only therefore would the article in question become a general license for scandal, calumny and falsehood against individuals, institutions and governments, in the form of publication…but all incitation to treason, assassination, and all other crimes however atrocious, if conveyed in printed language would be depunishable.”

“(The First Amendment) embraces all who believe in the existence of God, as well…as Christians of every denomination…This provision does not extend to atheists, because they do not believe in God or religion; and therefore…their sentiments and professions, whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and professions.”

United States Supreme Court, June 7, 1993, case of Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District, 977 F.2d 963,972 (5th Cir.1992) The Supreme Court upheld the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision permitting student-initiated prayer at high school graduation ceremonies, providing a majority of the class votes to do so.
“A majority of students can do what the State acting on its own cannot do to incorporate prayer in public high school graduation ceremonies.”

“There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”

United States Court of Appeals – 6th Circuit 1992, in the case Americans United for the Separation of Church and State v. City of Grand Rapids, 980 F.2d 1538, 1555, stated:
“What the members of Chabad House seeks in this court is fully consistent with, and does not violate, our traditional division between church and state…They merely asked that they not be spurned because they choose to praise God. Instead of forcing them to remain on our sidelines, our Constitution offers them platform from which to proclaim their message. In a traditional public forum, as at the ballot box, all citizens are insiders as they seek to influence our civil life.”

United States Court of Appeals – 7th Circuit, May 17, 1993; The court rendered its opinion in the case of Walsh v. Boy Scouts of America. In 1989, Elliott Walsh of Hinsdale (an agnostic) sued the Boy Scouts on behalf of his son, Mark. He claimed religious discrimination against the West Suburban Council Tiger Cub Scout chapter. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Boy Scouts could keep the phrase, ‘duty to God’ in their oath. A private organization had the right to exclude anyone who refused to take the oath. In a 2-1 majority opinion, Judge John Coffey declared that the Boy Scouts did not violate the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Scouting was an activity and not a facility. The Boy Scouts of America was a membership organization and not a ‘place of public accommodation’.

“The leadership of many in our government is a testimonial to the success of Boy Scout activities…In recent years, single parent families, gang activity, the availability of drugs and other factors have increased the dire need for support structures like the Scouts.”

“When the government, in this instance, through the courts, seeks to regulate the membership of an organization like the Boy Scouts in a way that scuttles its founding principles, we run the risk of undermining one of the seedbeds of virtue that cultivate the sorts of citizens our nation so desperately needs.”

United States Court of Appeals – 7th Circuit 1992, in the case of Doe v. Small, 964 F.2d 611, 618 (7th Cir. 1992), stated:
“The Supreme Court has refused to find the Establishment Clause to be a sufficiently compelling interest to exclude private religious speech even from a limited public forum created by the government.”

United States Court of Appeals – 8th Circuit 1980, in the case Florey v. Souix Falls School District, 619 F. 2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir. 1980) The court declared that performance and study of religious songs, inclusive of Christmas carols, is constitutional, providing the purpose is:
“Advancement of the students’ knowledge of society’s cultural and religious heritage, as well as the provision of an opportunity for students to perform a full range of music, poetry, and drama that is likely to be of interest to the students and their audience.”

United States Court of Appeals – 9th Circuit 1993, in the case of Kreisner v. City of San Diego, 1 F.3d 775,785, declared:
“The committee (seeking to erect the display), like other citizens of diverse views, has a right to express its views publically in areas traditionally held open for all manner of speech.”

United States Supreme Court 1948, McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, and Justice Felix Frankfurter rendered the opinion of the court.
“Traditionally, organized education in the Western world was Church education. It could hardly be otherwise when the education of children was primarily study of the Word and the ways of God. Even in the Protestant countries, where there was a less close identification of Church and State, the basis of education was largely the Bible, and its chief purpose inculcation of piety…”

United States Supreme Court 1963, in the case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212, 225 (1963), pp.21, 71. Associate Justice Tom Clark wrote the courts opinion:

“It is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and government. As we said in ‘Engle v. Vitale’. ‘The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion’”

“Secularism is unconstitutional…preferring those who do not believe over those who do believe…It is the duty of government to deter no-belief religions…Facilities of government cannot offend religious principles…”

“[T]he State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.

It might be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

United States Supreme Court, 1969, in the case Tinker v. DesMoines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506, 512, 513 (1969) staed:

“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. (Student’s rights apply) in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on campus during authorized hours…”

“School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students.”

United States Supreme Court 1973, in the case Anderson v. Lake City Corp, 475F. 2d 29, 33, 34 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 879, stated:

“But this creed does not include any element of coercion concerning these beliefs unless one considers it coercive to look upon the Ten Commandments. Although they are in plain view, no one is required to read them or recite them."

“It does not seem reasonable to require removal of a passive monument, involving no compulsion, because its accepted precepts, as a foundation for law, reflect the religious nature of an ancient era.”

United States Supreme Court 1980, in the case Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42, 46 (1980), stated:
“Religion has been closely identified with our history and government, Abington School District, 1963, and that history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. Engle v. Vitale, 1962.”

United States Supreme Court 1981, in the case Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 269 (1981), stated:
“Religious worship and discussion…are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment.”

United States Supreme Court 1982, in the case Chambers v. March, 675 F. 228, 233 (8th Cir. 1982); review allowed, 463 U.S. 783 (1982), Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the court’s opinion:

“The legislature by majority vote invites a clergyman to give a prayer, neither the inviting nor the giving nor the hearing of the prayer is making a law. On this basis alone…the sayings of prayers, per se, in the legislative halls at the opening session is not prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“The case Bogen v. Doty…involved a county board’s practice of opening each of its public meetings with a prayer offered by a local member of the clergy…This Court upheld that practice, finding that it advanced a clearly secular purpose of establishing a solemn atmosphere and serious tone for the board meetings…establishing solemnity is the primary effect of all invocations at gatherings of persons with differing views on religion.”

“The men who wrote the First Amendment religion clause did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that amendment…the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.”

“It can hardly be thought that in the same week the members of the first Congress voted to appoint and pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment…(that) they intended to forbid what they had just declared acceptable.”

“(Chaplains and prayer) are deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”

President George Washington addressed the General Committee of the United Baptist Churches of Virginia on May 10, 1789:

“If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it;

“…I beg you will be persuaded that one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against…every species of religious persecution.”