-By Warner Todd Huston
Illinois’ centrist Republican Senator Mark Kirk was the latest Republican to join the crusade for gay marriage. On Tuesday morning the Senator posted a message on his website that claimed that marriage was all about love. But, is it? Does it make sense to make “love” a determining criteria to define marriage? Logic would not only say no, but would point out the danger in the characterization.
In his short message, Kirk said, “Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back–government has no place in the middle.”
Before we get into this further, I respect Senator Kirk quite a lot. I don’t agree with him a lot. I am a conservative and we are lucky if Kirk is a 70 percenter on conservative issues.
But the thing about Mark Kirk is there is no wondering where he stands. Kirk is not one of those pols who drifts from issue to issue careening from one ideological side to another every time the political winds blow. Kirk has pretty much stayed steady in his beliefs for his whole political career. You can trust Mark Kirk to say what he means and stick to it far more often than most pols.
And, let’s face it. He’s from Illinois, the land just to the left of Stalingrad.
April 5, 2013 | Filed Under Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Ethics, Freedom, Gay Marriage, Gays, Journalism, Liberals, Liberty, Marriage, Media, Media Bias, NBC, Progressives, Warner Todd Huston | No Comments
-By Warner Todd Huston
Chuck Todd presented an odd premise on last Sunday’s Meet the Press. Since the issue of gay marriage is now before the Supreme Court of the United States, Todd wondered if this meant that the economy is back on track because people’s attention has drifted from the economy to gay marriage?
During the March 31 broadcast, Todd noted that we are suddenly beset by a major debate on gay marriage and abortion. The NBC newser then pointed out that in the past the “big polarizing issues of the last two generations” have benefited Republicans.
Panelist Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal didn’t really think that we were exactly seeing any new focus on social issues because these fights have been going on for half a century. It was just part and parcel to our political climate, she pointed out.
-By Warner Todd Huston
TNT Cable network chose to ridicule motherhood, motherhood activism, marriage, and large families all at once on its latest episode of the cop-dramaedy series Rizzoli & Isles. The episode showed once again the disdain with which traditional motherhood and marriage is viewed in the entertainment industry.
On the July 17 episode two well-known psychologists are murdered setting the stage for the investigation. The heroes of the show, Rizzoli, a police detective, and Isles, a medical examiner, discover that the victims are advocates of childless families and had a history of activism against childbirth. Naturally, the first suspect the police in the show light upon is a woman that featured the anti-child psychologist on her pro-motherhood website.
The police look over this motherhood advocate’s website to find that her organization is called, Women Are About Kids. Yes, the acronym is WAAK, because, well, you know, anyone that is pro-family is whacked, right? The website also features a cross-hairs targeting symbol over the face of the murdered anti-child psychologist. Because, well, you know, all those violent conservatives use crosshairs on their enemies.
May 23, 2012 | Filed Under Barbara Boxer, Congress, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Ethics, Gay Marriage, Gays, Government, Government, Corruption, Joe Biden, Liberals, Marriage, Michael Bresciani, President | Comments Off
-By Rev Michael Bresciani
Gay marriage opponents have won bans or amendments 32 times on ballot measures since 1998. Joe Biden, like his boss, doesn’t seem to care much for the general consensus of voters around the country and he seemed even a bit cocky in his announcement that he is okay with men who want to marry men, and women that want to marry women.
Biden ignored the 4,000 year old solid scriptural teaching to offer his all new definition of marriage to NBC’s Meet the Press, Sunday May 6, 2012 at Mellon Auditorium in Washington.
Biden told his audience that – “marriage should be about being loyal to someone you love, whether that marriage is between a man and a woman, two men or two women.”
With such a high official of the U. S. government chiming in with both his good attitude and an entirely new definition of marriage, we are caught between Biden and Jesus and must now decide who we are more disappointed with.
June 30, 2011 | Filed Under Barack Obama, Christianity, Democrats/Leftists, Freedom, Gay Marriage, Gays, Government, Corruption, Judges, Liberals, Liberty, Marriage, Michael Bresciani, Nanny State, President, Regulation, Religion | Comments Off
-By Rev Michael Bresciani
As the economy crashes around us Mr. Obama seems content to continue tinkering with the social fabric of the nation as the elected voice of the far left ideologues and the throngs of citizens who are content to let government collect taxes and make regulations; as long as they can continue in personal prurient pursuits that would make our forefathers cringe.
Social tinkering may be second only to golf for this president. Obama’s public stance on marriage has changed several times since his days as a senator, but now with his influence as president his final stated position seems to have come full circle. His choice to instruct the Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) says it all.
How convenient that Obama happens to be speaking at the “Gala with the Gay Community” this week in New York on the same day a vote may be made in the New York state senate on the redefinition of marriage. A little presidential boost could seriously affect the outcome of that vote. Coincidence; don’t count on it. But at the top of the news, troop withdrawals from Afghanistan have swept away our attention.
June 9, 2011 | Filed Under 2nd Amendment, Conservatives, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Elections, Gay Marriage, Gays, GOP, Government, Government, Corruption, Liberals, Marriage, President, Republicans, RightPundits.com, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
On Wednesday afternoon’s Hugh Hewitt radio show GOP hopeful Jon Huntsman said that he’d support an assault weapons ban and would not support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the latter because he supports civil unions. Hours later the Huntsman campaign reversed its candidate’s statement saying he misunderstood the question. He would veto an assault weapons ban, they claimed.
First of all, here is exactly what Huntsman said when host Hewitt asked if he’d veto an assault weapons ban if he were president: “I would not veto an assault weapons ban.” That seems pretty clear, no?…
Read the rest at RightPundits.com
-By Warner Todd Huston
Everyone’s jaws are jamming about the fact that ten years ago Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child out of wedlock with some hussey or another. The follow up shocker is that his wife of 25 years, Maria Shriver — a member of the Kennedy clan — has left him. It all makes me wonder what is wrong with Maria Shriver? What sort of Kennedy IS she, anyway.
I was recently on Political Vindication Radio and we came to several conclusions about this whole Shriver woman business.
Maria Shriver simply can’t be a Kennedy. I am convinced she was adopted or something.
-By Rev Michael Bresciani
According to the framers of the Constitution one of the original intentions of ordaining that revered document was to insure domestic tranquility. The term was used in the preamble to the Constitution and has never been used to adjudicate any constitutional questions.
In this moment in time, where a sitting President has recently announced to the nation that our laws needn’t be enforced (DOMA – Defense of Marriage Act) it would hardly seem like the time to drag the preamble into the fray and look for some meaning or guidance. Yet, at the moment it may be all we have.
It may be agreed upon that the Constitution does not contemplate the secession of states from the Union but who would have guessed that we would elect a President who would secede from the Constitution. In this day of high perversion, can America deal with this complexity?
-By Kevin Roeten
In Asheville (NC) the tradition of Marriage may have just been altered beyond comprehension. Some people are screaming that they just want equal treatment. But with marriage, people are given a privilege, not a right. But many consider Asheville a bump in the road and an exception to the rule. It’s been said that up to 12% of Asheville’s population is gay, lesbian, transgender, or bisexual. Many of those cohabitate. Does that mean if they were granted the privilege to “marry” as so many other couples do (one woman and one man), all problems would disappear because they were treated equally?
On 2/22/11, the City of Asheville approved a resolution that would “allow same-sex couples to share fully and equally in the familial rights and responsibilities of civil marriage”. But what does that really mean?
An easy interpretation of the resolution is it’s legal to “marry”, or to form a recognized union, with someone of the same sex. The resolution also included a city preference list for homosexuals. Interpretation: “The City of Asheville would be openly discriminating in favor of homosexuals in employment.” That would be making homosexuality a “civil right”. The Constitution, Declaration, or even a dictionary writer ever called homosexuality a civil right.
August 18, 2010 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Children, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Gay Marriage, Gays, Government, Government, Corruption, Judges, Law, Liberals, Marriage, Regulation, Selwyn Duke | Comments Off
-By Selwyn Duke
Judge Vaughn Walker’s legal ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 certainly was no triumph of intellectualism. But while it’s easy to thus dismiss it, what’s usually forgotten is that reasoning such as his flies only in a certain cultural milieu — a milieu that, in part, has been shaped by conservatives. Let’s examine the matter.
Walker’s lack of intellectualism is profound. Among other things, he said that opposition to faux marriage was ultimately based on “moral disapproval.” While this is a rhetorically compelling argument in an age where “morality” has become a dirty word, it is also nonsense. This is not because he is wrong in his understanding of marriage’s more cerebral defenders; it is because he is wrong in his understanding of law. For the fact is that all credible legal proscriptions and prescriptions are a matter of “moral disapproval.” Don’t believe me? I’ll explain.
Paul A. Ibbetson
In a recent court decision, California’s Proposition 8 initiative, which stated that marriage was to be between a man and a woman, has been struck down as unconstitutional. As reported by Fox News, the decision that overruled the voters of California was made by openly gay U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Walker, one of three openly gay federal judges in the country, said that the people’s choice in California for traditional marriage was unconstitutional because “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.” Of course, homosexuals around the country dance in glee at the new court decision amidst the flutter of rainbow flags, while appeals and other court battles over the gay marriage question prepare to begin.
Today, to oppose the destruction of traditional values is to violate the less-than-silent-but-always-growing edict of political correctness. So in the spirit of being overly fair to gay marriage proponents, let us revisit Judge Walker’s rationale for overturning the country’s long-standing tradition of marriage. Judge Walker states on the issue of marriage that opposite-sex couples must not be seen as superior to same-sex couples. The word “superior” is commonly defined as having a higher importance, above the average in merit, or being of higher quality, to name a few. So using Judge Walker’s argument on couples, is traditional marriage of higher importance than gay marriage? From the standpoint of Californians, it most certainly is. In one of the most liberal states in the country the people rose up to defend traditional marriage in November 2008. The importance of this issue was so strong that the people took action to correct the decisions of their liberal courts within five months of the state Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage. They did this legally through the voting process, and traditional marriage won because of its importance to the voters of California.
August 8, 2010 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Democrats/Leftists, Entertainment, Gay Marriage, Gays, Government, Government, Corruption, Hollywood, Law, Liberals, Marriage, Media, Media Bias, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
In yet one more example among thousands, we see why loud-mouth, extreme left-wing talker Rosie O’Donnell is wholly unworthy of a national forum. In a recent segment of her satellite radio show Rosie Radio, O’Donnell idiotically claimed that gays were being “rounded up” in America so that a “pink triangle” could be slapped on them just like they were during the Holocaust. But just as obscenely, O’Donnell admitted that her marriage to Kelly Carpenter was only a political statement, one of “civil disobedience,” instead of a marriage of love proving that the whole issue of “gay marriage” has nothing at all to do with rights or “love” but is solely one of politics.
On her show, O’Donnell said of her 2004 marriage:
George Bush, in the middle of a war, had an all-station news conference to announce how horrible it was for the safety of America that gay people were getting married in San Francisco, which pissed me off enough to get on a plane and go get married.
Of course, as in most of what this hack says, O’Donnell lied about what George W. Bush said in 2004. As Tim Graham reminds us, Bush did not call any “all-station” press conferences but in truth only issued a statement from the Roosevelt Room of the White House.
-By Timothy Dalrymple
While the conclusion Judge Vaughn Walker drew in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is completely unsurprising, the scope of the ruling and its many declarations on matters ethical, psychological, and theological is nothing short of astonishing. To call it a case of judicial overreach is to indulge in severe understatement. Judge Walker not only ruled that Prop 8 violated the equal protection and due process clauses, he held forth on everything from the motives of California voters to the essential nature of marriage to the appropriateness of voting according to moral and religious convictions. What was supposed to be a trial of the constitutionality of Proposition 8 became a trial of the rationality of those who oppose same-sex marriage — and Perez Hilton could hardly have supplied a more one-sided conclusion. Prop 8
Judge Walker was conscious, of course, that his ruling would be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Appellate courts do not generally rehearse the discovery of “facts.” They investigate whether the right laws and precedents were rightly applied to the facts of the case. Yet Judge Walker strategically located his most explosive claims — which are not “facts” at all but his own moral intuitions — in the lengthy “findings of fact” portion of his ruling. He determines, for instance, that “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” Yet this, it must be admitted even by those who agree with the statement, is not a simple finding of fact. How was the judge able to determine this? What does it mean to be an essential part of marriage, and if it is no longer essential, then when exactly did it cease to be so? The attempt to discover demonstrable “facts” when it comes to matters of value, psychology, and theology was a misbegotten enterprise from the beginning.
August 4, 2010 | Filed Under California, Civil Rights, Constitution, Democrats/Leftists, Elections, Family, Freedom, Gay Marriage, Gays, Government, Government, Corruption, Judges, Law, Liberals, Marriage, Regulation, Supreme Court, Warner Todd Huston | 1 Comment
-By Warner Todd Huston
The long awaited ruling from Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, an H.W Bush Appointee and one of only two openly gay federal judges, has ruled that California’s Proposition 8 violates due process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.
“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote.
Judge Walker said that Prop 8 failed to “advance any rational basis” to deny gay men and lesbians the legal ability to marry.
Pro-traditional marriage activists promise to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court and then, likely, to the Supreme Court.
-By Warner Todd Huston
On the eve of Father’s Day, I heard on the air on Chicago’s WIND AM some typical left-wing babble about families. A fellow calling himself a doctor waxed eloquent over how we can “make our own families,” and how “families aren’t just about blood. They are about love.” Nice, gauzy, and wholly inadequate to truly define the importance of family, isn’t it? But it is this mushy-headed thinking that is so destructive to the role of real families in America today, especially where it concerns fathers. So, on this 2010 Father’s Day I thought I’d correct the mushy-headed liberalism about families and put into perspective the true importance of families and fathers.
First of all, there is no disputing that families are “about love.” That does, indeed, go without saying. Love is quite helpful for familial strength and success. But to simply say “families mean love” and leave it at that is completely misleading and inadequate to inform us of what a family is. In fact, love is equally as important as another descriptive word: responsibility. Families cannot survive without the later though they can get by without the former.
Unfortunately, in this society today we’ve dumbed down the word love into meaningless bromides with the result that love really has lost all meaning. All too often we use the word without any respect for its true meaning. We “love” movies, we “love” sports, we “love” music… sadly “love” has replaced the word “enjoy” or even “like.” So when people say that love is all we need to make a family, we slight the difficulty and determination that making a family means. We make of family an ill-defined thought, an empty concept without giving it the seriousness it’s due. We need to add the word responsibility to the description of what a family is so that people fully appreciate the importance of it all.
-By David R. Usher and Michael J. McManus
Marriage-absence is the greatest domestic problem America faces. Our most daunting social, economic, budgetary, criminal, and constitutional dilemmas are driven by marriage-absence and will not abate unless traditional marriage is protected and encouraged.
Establishing sensible policies to return America to a marriage-based society will prove rewarding, productive, and seminal. The major problems of most unmarried mothers and their children will be naturally resolved. A woman’s right to be supported by, cared for, and helped by her husband will be ensured. Health care coverage will become commonplace without resorting to National Health Care. Chronic budgetary deficits at state levels will disappear and the federal deficit will drop as the number of single parent families costing taxpayers $20,000 each – plummets. (1) Most children will grow up in intact homes, disciplined and prepared to learn in school. Substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, and poverty will decrease to manageable norms. The dollar will regain strength as the currency of world exchange.
The future of the United States is in jeopardy. Therefore, we must re-create marriage in America now, while we still have time to prevent certain financial and social collapse.
-By Warner Todd Huston
(note: rarely do I burden the readers with personal anecdotes, but I think this one is mildly amusing…)
To show how women sometimes think about things a bit more clearly than men, were it not for my wife’s refusal, I’d have been married on April Fool’s Day, in 2000.
In 2000 my wife and I decided to run off to Tennessee and get re-married in a little vacation/weekend away ceremony. So, she told me to make the arrangements. It just happened to be the weekend of April 1 (Friday was March 31, Sat. April1).
And so, I called the various hotels, chapels and what have you and made the plans for our ceremony to happen on the Saturday of that weekend. Sensible, right? Travel on Friday, marriage on Saturday, a nice night out that night, and then we come home Sunday afternoon. Perfect timing, right?
After I was done I went to the wife and gave her the info all proud that I’d done my duty.
She looked at me, looked at the info, and said “I am NOT getting married on Saturday!”
I was utterly perplexed. What the hell her problem was I had no clue.
She looks at me squint eyed and said, “What date is Saturday?”
I said, “Uh… April 1st. So, what?”
She says, “I am NOT getting married on April Fool’s Day!”
I’m all, “Ohhhhhh, I get it now!” Like, Duh, right?
And so I had to call the places in Tennessee back up and change everything to Friday.
Now, as a guy I never once gave thought to the idea that getting married on April Fool’s Day was problematic. But, can you imagine what everyone would be saying for the next umpteen years about that date? For that matter, it might even be fodder for a fight at some later date, I’m sure you can see that.
Yep. She was right, but it never occurred to me. Saturday was just another day to me. She saw a bit more in it than I did.
-By Thomas E. Brewton
Covenants bind us, as individuals, to God; as children of God, to our families and to our brothers and sisters in God’s church throughout the world; and, as citizens, to preservation of a moral, God-fearing society.
In Sunday’s sermon at the Cohocton Assembly of God church, Pastor Dan Gardner used a text from the Book of Malachi:
10 Have we not all one Father; Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
11 Judah has broken faith. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the LORD loves, by marrying the daughter of a foreign god. 12 As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the LORD cut him off from the tents of Jacob —even though he brings offerings to the LORD Almighty.
13 Another thing you do: You flood the LORD’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
16 “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith. (Malachi 2:10-16)
In the Biblical sense, marriage covenants can be viewed on three levels. First is the bond between individuals and God. Second is the covenant between Israel and God; after Jesus’s crucifixion, the new covenant in His blood, joining all Christians in the church as children of God. Finally, in the marriage bond between husband and wife and between parents and children. These, obviously, are interrelated and can be seen as aspects of keeping faith with God.
-By Vince Johnson
Watch the Tiger Woods affair closely. I have a theory that the negatives of his scandal are being turned into a positive. The realities are worth review:
1. 1. Any tournament Tiger competed in the past 6 years had a significantly larger audience than those tournaments where he was absent.
2. 2. To save Tiger’s amazing drawing power the PGA was forced to initiate a “damage control” strategy and in doing so may have stumbled upon an opportunity to substantially increase his TV audiences for the 2010 season.
October 21, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Democrats/Leftists, Freedom, Gay Marriage, Government, Corruption, Liberals, Marriage, Morals/Sex, Rights, Socialism, Society/Culture, UN, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
UN “Special Rapporteur” Martin Scheinin recently filed a report with the UN titled “Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism” in which he states that human gender is not a fixed thing but a mere “social construct” that is “changeable over time.”
In this paper Scheinin, the “Special Rapporteur” — I do get a kick out of the pretentiousness of that grandiose title — and the UN leadership (a word I use advisedly) wants terribly to deny both genetics and simple reality. Page eight of this report asserts that a man is not necessarily a man and a women… well, maybe she’s something else entirely… but what ever they are their gender is but a temporary designation determined at the whim of society.
Catch this PC garbage:
October 19, 2009 | Filed Under Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Democrats/Leftists, Foreign Policy, Free Speech, Freedom, Government, Corruption, Islam, Islamofascism, Marriage, President, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Taxes, Terrorism, War on Terror, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
President Barack Obama is putting the finishing touches on making a mockery out of the unsupportable claim that Democrats care about women’s rights by his signal to the Afghan Taliban, warlords, strongmen, militias, and tribal leaders that he’s ready to negotiate with anyone there in order to smooth his efforts in that troubled region.
President Obama is letting it be known that he’s prepared to cut deals with the Taliban in order for Afghan warlords to cut ties with al Qaeda. Obama thinks he can work with the supposedly “moderate” Taliban groups in Afghanistan in a bid to oust al Qaeda. A Taliban moderate. What sort of mythical creature is this?
One thing is sure, however, if Obama turns Afghanistan back over to the Taliban and other Islamic warlords in an effort to make it appear as if he’s had success there, women will be the hardest hit. The possibility that Obama will abandon Afghanistan’s women frightens Wazhma Frogh, an Afghan women’s advocate who received the U.S. State Department’s 2009 International Woman of Courage Award.
October 3, 2009 | Filed Under Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Children, Democrats/Leftists, Freedom, Gay Marriage, Government, Corruption, Marriage, Media Bias, Morals/Sex, President, Selwyn Duke, Society/Culture | Comments Off
-By Selwyn Duke
Perhaps you’ve heard the tragic story of David Reimer. Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in 1966, David was the victim of a botched circumcision that left his penis charred beyond surgical repair. His parents Ron and Janet, no doubt beside themselves, were confused about the best way to proceed. Then, one day, they saw a man named Dr. John Money on television.
Money was talking about his theory of “gender neutrality,” which states that “gender identity” is learned rather than innate. The idea was that the sexes were the same except for the superficial physical differences; this implies that if a child were altered so as to superficially resemble the opposite sex and was raised as one of its members, he would be happy with that sexual identity. Hearing this, the Reimers hoped they had found their salvation.
They took their boy to Money, who told them that their son’s penis could not be restored and that he stood a much better chance of living a happy life if “sex-reassignment surgery” (in reality, reassigning sex is about as possible as reassigning species) were performed and he was raised as a girl. The Reimers agreed, and the surgery was performed when the boy, who would be named “Brenda,” was 22 months old.
-By John Armor
Some names just belong together. Mention one, and the other comes to mind automatically. Romeo and Juliet. Tom and Jerry. Currier and Ives. So it is with Randy and Susan, who came up this weekend to hike a part of the Bartram Trail and had dinner with us on Saturday.
Randy is E. Randolph Wootton, Jr., a classmate and friend of mine for six years at the Gilman School in Baltimore. Susan is Susan White Wootton, also a friend at the same time, who attended Notre Dame Preparatory School in Baltimore.
I graduated in a class of 66, as I recall. There were exactly two of my classmates who had dated the same girl for all their years since they first discovered girls. Both pairs married, had children, went into their professions. In one couple, Walter Leach tragically died young, twenty-five years ago. So, that left Randy and Susan as the one, lifetime pair.
Several of us in the class dated Susan on occasion. She was, and is, attractive, witty, with a fine sense of humor. But there was never any doubt that Randy was her guy. End of discussion. And the same was true for Randy. Susan was, since they began dating at about age 15 his lady. End of discussion.
Help the Soldiers!
American GeniusOur Founding Ideas
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Contact UsEmail Publius' Forum
Separation of School