What Did Jefferson Mean by the Phrase Wall of Separation? - The Federalist Papers

What Did Jefferson Mean by the Phrase Wall of Separation? - The Federalist Papers

What Did Jefferson Mean by the Phrase Wall of Separation?

By Bill Fortenberry On November 1, 2013

 

When considering Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, most people only consider how the phrase “wall of separation” sounds to our modern ears.  To us, this phrase sounds as if it is describing an impenetrable impasse which stands between our nation’s religious institutions and her political institutions.  Consider, for example, the following opinion of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in McCollum v. Board of Education:
Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson’s metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a “wall of separation,” not of a fine line easily overstepped.

Justice Frankfurter’s opinion sounds perfectly reasonable to most of those living in the twenty-first century, but it is not consistent with the way that this phrase was understood by our forefathers.
The phrase “wall of separation” has a very lengthy history in the Judeo-Christian world view.  It is a reference to the wall which separated between the Jewish and the Gentile worshipers in the temple at Jerusalem, and in Ephesians 2:14, Paul refers to this wall being symbolically broken down by Christ when He died on the cross.  This is almost the exclusive usage of this phrase in the literature prior to Jefferson’s letter, and an example of it can be seen in the 1756 edition of The Family Expositer by Philip Doddridge:
For he is the Procurer of our Peace, who hath reconciled us, whether Jews or Gentiles, to God and to each other, and hath so incorporated us into one Church, that it may properly be said, he hath made both one, as to an Interest in the Favour of God, and in the Privileges of his People; and that no Difference might remain between us, he hath thrown down the middle Wall of Separation, which divided us from each other, as the Wall which runs between the Court of the Gentiles and that of Israel in the Temple at Jerusalem, divided the Gentile Worshippers from the Jewish.
Gentile proselytes to the Jewish religion were not permitted into the inner court of the temple unless they actually became Jews by being circumcised in accordance with Exodus 12:48.  These proselytes were allowed to worship God and to participate in the ceremonies, but they had to remain distinct from the Jews by staying on the Gentile side of the wall of separation.
In the Christian era, following Paul’s symbolic usage, the term “wall of separation” came to be used as a figure of speech for anything which prevented complete union between two groups.  This usage can be seen with great clarity in James Durham’s Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland published in 1740.
In such Practices as are opposite and infer Division in the Cases mentioned, there can be no Union or Communion expected, as we see in all the Cases where such have been practised, as of the Novatians, Donatists, and such like; there may be more or less Heat and Bitterness betwixt Men that differ so:  But there cannot be Union, because such Determinations and Practices do draw a Line, and build a Wall of Separation betwixt the one and the other, and so makes one Side to be accounted as not of the same Body.
This phrase was also used in this sense in William Hale’s “Survey of the Modern State of the Church of Rome” published in The Analytical Review in 1790.
The grand pillar of the Romish church was indirectly sapped by its rational members, when they found themselves obliged, by cogent reasons, and the humane suggestions of their own minds, to soften tenets they could not enforce or excuse.  The wall of separation thus removed, all conscientious christians may meet and agree, in observing the main doctrines of the gospel, justice, mercy and truth, leaving rancorous disputes to those who are hearers, rather than doers of the law.
But uses of this phrase were not limited to religious writings.  It was also used on multiple occasions to describe King James’ successful union of England and Scotland.  One of the more famous of these is found in Sir Francis Bacon’s address in the British Parliament:
His majesty is the first (as you noted it well) that hath laid lapis angularis, the corner stone of these two mighty kingdoms of England and Scotland, and taken away the wall of separation: whereby his majesty is become the monarch of the most puissant and military nations of the world.
And, of course, I cannot fail to mention that Benjamin Franklin once used this phrase to refer to the imaginary boundary between fresh water and salt water at the mouth of a river:
In such cases, the salt water comes up the river, and meets the fresh in that part where, if there were a wall or bank of earth across, from side to side, the river would form a lake, fuller indeed at some times than at others, according to the seasons, but whose evaporation would, one time with another, be equal to its supply.

When the communication between the two kinds of water is open, this supposed wall of separation may be conceived as a moveable one, which is not only pushed some miles higher up the river by every flood tide from the sea, and carried down again as far by every tide of ebb, but which has even this space of vibration removed nearer to the sea in wet seasons, when the springs and brooks in the upper country are augmented by the falling rains, so as to swell the river, and farther from the sea in dry seasons.
Thus we can see from the historical understanding of this phrase that when Jefferson wrote of the “wall of separation between church and state,” he was not referring to a completely impassible barrier as Justice Frankfurter supposed.  He was using a commonly understood phrase to describe the fact that the First Amendment prevented the church and the state from achieving a complete union in America.  They would always remain distinct entities, and the President of our nation would never be, as Jefferson described it, “the legal head of its church.”  This was the true intent of Jefferson’s claim, and we would be fortunate indeed if this intent were once again to be realized among us today.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with the author’s assessment of what Jefferson meant by “a wall of separation between church and state?

Blog: Crime rate plunges after city dumps unionized police

Blog: Crime rate plunges after city dumps unionized police

Crime rate plunges after city dumps unionized police

Thomas Lifson

Camden, New Jersey dumped its unionized police force last spring, unable to afford the lucrative union contract the city was stuck with, and instead contracted for police services with the nonunion county force. Crime promptly dropped. Ed Krayewski reports for Reason:

The city has been run exclusively by Democrats for several generations, and some local leaders openly worried that Camden, which already had the highest crime rate per capita last year, would get worse. But it hasn't. In fact, crime's gone down, as Fox News Latino reports: 
The reorganization increased the amount of police on the streets and incorporated cutting edge technology such as ShotSpotter rooftop monitors. The initiative has already gotten results, according to city leaders.
Over the summer months this year, the murder rate fell by 22 percent and crime overall was down 15 percent, according to data provided by Camden County officials.

When it comes to cops versus robbers, you can generally find me in the pro-cop camp. But police unions are another thing entirely. In return for their admittedly hazardous and stressful jobs, unions have in many places abusive contracts. In Camden, for instance:

Salaries range from about $47,000 to $81,000 now, not including the shift differentials or additional longevity payments of 3 percent to 11 percent for any officer who has worked five years or more. Officials say they anticipate salaries for the new force will range from $47,000 to $87,000.
In 2009, as the economy was putting a freeze on municipal budgets even in well-off communities, the police here secured a pay increase of 3.75 percent.
And liberal sick time and family-leave policies have created an unusually high absentee rate: every day, nearly 30 percent of the force does not show up. (A typical rate elsewhere is in the single digits.)

It is even worse at the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit police, where outrageous total compensation packages  have transit cops earning far more. Prior to the recent strike settlement package, check out the total compensation of these transit cops:

Tietz, Forrest, Police Sergeant, Police Operations Division:                            $362,662

Lucarelli, Frank, Police Lieutenant, Police Operations Division                        $358,556

Rainey, Kenton, Police Chief, Office of the Chief                                           $324,981

Dixon, Marlon, Police Sergeant. Police Operations Division                            $302,315

Parker, E., Master Police Officer, Police Operations Division                           $298,160

Let's skip the ten next highest-paid members of the force and get to:

Barrera, Rodney,  Sr Police Officer, Police Operations Division:                      $262,070

And skip the next ten highest-paid, reaching:

Pashoian, Timothy, Police Sergeant, Police Operations Division:                    $240,728

At last! Somebody making under a quarter mill a year.

You can check out the entire list, and see how much is due to overtime and other methods of multiplying base pay here.

Police do deserve fair pay. But they should not be enriching themselves at the expense of the public, and their work rules should be fashioned to protect the public, not to fatten their wallets.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/crime_rate_plunges_after_city_dumps_unionized_police.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook#ixzz2mBH9Ux1U
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Seven Huge Flaws in the Way Liberals Think | Right Wing News

Seven Huge Flaws in the Way Liberals Think | Right Wing News

Seven Huge Flaws in the Way Liberals Think

Written By : John Hawkins
February 2, 2010

1) Liberals believe they can change human nature. Sure, human beings can be shaped and molded to a certain extent. Any parent who has spanked a child can tell you that. However, most people care more about what they’re having for lunch today than an earthquake that kills ten thousand people on the other side of the world. We’re just built that way and no amount of sensitivity training, preschool classes, or Michael Moore documentaries is going to “fix” it.

2) Liberals believe we can talk everything out with our enemies. One of the weirder quirks of liberalism is their belief that many of our bitterest enemies have rational reasons for disliking us and that can easily be talked away if they realize we’re good people. Hence, the common liberal refrain of, “Why do they hate us?” The reason this is a particularly odd belief is that liberals don’t even believe this about conservatives in the United States. The average liberal thinks that if we’re nice enough, we can reach an understanding with Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck can’t be reasoned with.

3) Liberals don’t have enough respect for our culture and traditions: To liberals, our cultural, economic, and political norms were formed by backwards troglodytes making arbitrary decisions based on superstition and racism. Unfortunately for them, as a general rule, that’s not so and proceeding as if it is, will often lead to exactly the same difficulties that our ancestors already dealt with in times past. No matter how smart we are, as Thomas Sowell would say, our wisdom is often no match for the “distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before.” Truly wise people are aware that there is a great deal that they do not know.
4) Liberalism is a fundamentally immoral political philosophy. Ironically, given all their talk about “shades of gray,” liberals have a very Manichean view of the world. They consider their fellow travelers to be on the side of the angels, while the people who disagree with them are treated as evil. This leads to an “anything goes” mentality when dealing with their foes: ignoring the law via a “living constitution,” politically based prosecutions, shouting down opposing speakers, and treating lying about their agenda or opponents to be moral. On the other hand, liberals will support other libs, no matter how corrupt, sleazy, or vile they are as long as they’re politically useful to the left. See Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, John Murtha, and Robert Byrd for examples of that. In other words, as Margaret Thatcher has said of the Left, “For them, the end always seems to justify the means.”
5) Liberals believe merely being liberal makes them good people. Liberals who’re obsessed with money think they’re compassionate because they give away other people’s tax dollars. They believe they care more about the earth than other people, even as they fly around in private jets, because they babble on about global warming. They can be dumb as a rock, but believe they’re smarter than most other people because they’re liberals. In other words, in the minds of most liberals, liberalism is an all-purpose substitute for actual virtue instead of just another political philosophy.
6) Liberals have too much faith in government. Even most liberals would admit that government regularly fails the people. If you don’t believe that, just ask them about the Bush Administration and they’ll give you an earful. However, liberals tend to believe that with the right person in charge, government won’t be so slow, stupid, inefficient, and badly run. Human history proves that they’re wrong about that.
7) Liberals have minimal interest in whether the programs they support work or not. To most liberals, whether a government program betters people’s lives is completely irrelevant to whether they’ll support it. A program that doesn’t work and costs billions, but sounds compassionate and helps Democrats politically is a huge success in the eyes of the Left. Once you understand that liberals think this way, their baffling support for programs that make no “common sense” is much easier to understand.

The Gun Confiscation Notice an NYC Resident Reportedly Received Will Likely Send Chills Down Your Spine | TheBlaze.com

The Gun Confiscation Notice an NYC Resident Reportedly Received Will Likely Send Chills Down Your Spine

The Gun Confiscation Notice an NYC Resident Reportedly Received Will Likely Send Chills Down Your Spine

Nov. 27, 2013 11:19pm Jason Howerton 

 

New York City has reportedly started sending out confiscation notices ordering gun owners to “immediately surrender” rifles and/or shotguns capable of holding more than five rounds of ammunition. It is illegal to possess a rifle or shotgun with the capacity to hold more than five rounds in the city, according to NYC Administrative Code 10-306 (b).

An alleged notice sent to an NYC resident, dated Nov. 18, offers the gun owner the following options:

1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.

2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City…

[…]

3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance, or you may request the option to bring your firearm to a licensed gunsmith for a permanent modification and certification proving that it is permanently modified and in compliance.

Source: Truth About Guns

While the confiscation notice, reported by the Truth About Guns, very well may be a normal occurrence in New York City, gun owners in firearm-friendly states like Texas or Arizona will probably have a hard time even imagining receiving such a letter from authorities over a rifle or shotgun that could potentially hold more than five rounds.

The notice above deals directly with New York City gun regulations, but there are also concerns of a potential state-wide gun confiscation effort in New York following the passage of the SAFE Act.

In addition to outlawing an array of semi-automatic rifles, the SAFE Act restricted ammunition magazines to seven rounds, down from 10. The law was later changed to allow gun owners to purchase magazines with the capacity to hold 10 rounds, however, only seven rounds can be loaded unless the firearm is being used at a gun range or shooting competition.

The SAFE Act also creates a more comprehensive database of people barred from owning guns, and makes New York the first state to require background checks to buy bullets. The system was also said to help flag customers who buy large amounts of ammo. In another provision, therapists, doctors and other mental health professionals will be required to tell state authorities if a patient threatens to use a gun illegally. The patient’s weapon could then be taken away.

It wasn’t immediately clear how aggressively the state of New York is enforcing the new magazine restrictions or if law enforcement planned to send out similar notices to the one above to gun owners across the state. Phone calls made late Wednesday night to the Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office, the NY State Police and the NYPD were not returned.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

might as well go ahead buy a black market full-auto firearm holding 30 rounds? Either will just be an acceptable risk for their trades (crimes), only they will have ALL of the law abiding citizens out-gunned!

Krauthammer's MARVELOUS Summary Of Obama's Breathtaking Powergrabs. - Chicks on the Right - Chicks on the Right

Krauthammer's MARVELOUS Summary Of Obama's Breathtaking Powergrabs. - Chicks on the Right - Chicks on the Right

Krauthammer's MARVELOUS Summary Of Obama's Breathtaking Powergrabs.

Written by  Mockarena



If you haven't read CK's latest column, it's a MUST READ.

It's all about Obama's power grab, and most recently Harry Reid's.  It oughta be getting a lot more press, but naturally, with a complicit media who sits smack dab in the middle of the lap of the left, it's no wonder that the mainstream media is quiet.
Krauthammer, thankfully, is not. He writes, about the Senate power grab:

This was a disgraceful violation of more than two centuries of precedent. If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules. Senate rules today are whatever the majority decides they are that morning.
What distinguishes an institution from a flash mob is that its rules endure. They can be changed, of course. But only by significant supermajorities. That’s why constitutional changes require two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of the states. If we could make constitutional changes by majority vote, there would be no Constitution.
As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

Ouch.  And he's not any more kind towards Obama:

We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.
Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.
The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.
That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.

CK also writes how absolutely absurd it is when you hear liberal sheep screech about how Republicans are trying to change "the law of the land."  He says, "Every law is subject to revision and abolition if the people think it turned out to be a bad idea. Even constitutional amendments can be repealed — and have been (see Prohibition). After indignant denunciation of Republicans for trying to amend “the law of the land” constitutionally (i.e. in Congress assembled), Democrats turn utterly silent when the president lawlessly tries to do so by executive fiat."
Meanwhile, Obama delayed the employer mandate without so much as a peep from Democrats.  And are Democrats decrying Obama's attempt to force insurance carriers to restore canceled policies?  *Crickets*
"Authoritative lawlessness," CK calls it.
Well done, liberals.

Green Energy Company Faces $1 Million Fine

Green Energy Company Faces $1 Million Fine

November 29, 2013 by B. Christopher Agee Leave a Comment

Email0 Share1 0 Share3 Tweet0

To take the left’s rhetoric at face value is to concede that the political movement has a unique dedication to the environment. While demonizing capitalists who dare use proven sources of energy, radical environmentalists endlessly tout the latest fad alternative as humanity’s greatest hope for the future.

In reality, of course, the left’s posturing is far less about saving the environment – after all, more scientific studies than ever before cast serious doubt on the left’s apocalyptic predictions – and much more about maintaining control over the population.
This fact is illustrated by the promotion of wind energy as a “green” replacement for more established forms of energy. Of course, mankind has harnessed the power of wind in some form or another for most of its history. In recent years, however, substantial swaths of American land have been usurped for the development of so-called wind farms.
In addition to being widely considered an eyesore, these farms also pose a very real damage to the same environment their proponents are ostensibly working to save.
Two wind farms in Wyoming, both operated by Duke Energy Corp., are currently under fire regarding the deaths of more than 150 birds between 2009 and 2013. Among the animals killed were at least 14 eagles.
It is a crime to kill many of the species without a permit, which no wind energy company has yet pursued. Both the Justice Department and Fish and Wildlife Service are investigating additional bird deaths as part of a continuing investigation.

The company pleaded guilty to the charges recently and has agreed to pay a $1 million fine. This marks the first time, despite countless other deaths caused by wind turbines, that an energy company has faced such prosecution.
American Bird Conservancy President George Fenwick explained that energy created on these farms “is not green if it is killing hundreds of thousands of birds.”
A recent study showed that 67 or more bald and golden eagles were killed by turbines within the past five years. Since they do not look up as they fly, these birds of prey are especially vulnerable to the turbine’s blades, which can move at up to 170 miles per hour.
Though there are a few afterthought measures Duke and other companies can employ in an effort to prevent future deaths, these wind farms are already operational, meaning more birds will be killed in the future.
As the American Wind Energy Association recently confirmed in a statement, there can be no energy production that is “completely free of impacts, and wind energy is no exception.”
The same could have also been said in response to the rare missteps within the oil industry. Instead, the left decided that Americans should be forced to switch to more “environmentally friendly” alternatives such as wind and solar energy.
As is so often the case, it now appears their solution is actually creating more problems than it solves.
–B. Christopher Agee

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/green-energy-company-faces-1-million-fine/#wVkUvBG8B8kldodv.99

Green Energy Company Faces $1 Million Fine

November 29, 2013 by B. Christopher Agee Leave a Comment

Email0 Share1 0 Share4 Tweet0

To take the left’s rhetoric at face value is to concede that the political movement has a unique dedication to the environment. While demonizing capitalists who dare use proven sources of energy, radical environmentalists endlessly tout the latest fad alternative as humanity’s greatest hope for the future.

In reality, of course, the left’s posturing is far less about saving the environment – after all, more scientific studies than ever before cast serious doubt on the left’s apocalyptic predictions – and much more about maintaining control over the population.

This fact is illustrated by the promotion of wind energy as a “green” replacement for more established forms of energy. Of course, mankind has harnessed the power of wind in some form or another for most of its history. In recent years, however, substantial swaths of American land have been usurped for the development of so-called wind farms.

In addition to being widely considered an eyesore, these farms also pose a very real damage to the same environment their proponents are ostensibly working to save.

Two wind farms in Wyoming, both operated by Duke Energy Corp., are currently under fire regarding the deaths of more than 150 birds between 2009 and 2013. Among the animals killed were at least 14 eagles.

It is a crime to kill many of the species without a permit, which no wind energy company has yet pursued. Both the Justice Department and Fish and Wildlife Service are investigating additional bird deaths as part of a continuing investigation.

The company pleaded guilty to the charges recently and has agreed to pay a $1 million fine. This marks the first time, despite countless other deaths caused by wind turbines, that an energy company has faced such prosecution.

American Bird Conservancy President George Fenwick explained that energy created on these farms “is not green if it is killing hundreds of thousands of birds.”

A recent study showed that 67 or more bald and golden eagles were killed by turbines within the past five years. Since they do not look up as they fly, these birds of prey are especially vulnerable to the turbine’s blades, which can move at up to 170 miles per hour.

Though there are a few afterthought measures Duke and other companies can employ in an effort to prevent future deaths, these wind farms are already operational, meaning more birds will be killed in the future.

As the American Wind Energy Association recently confirmed in a statement, there can be no energy production that is “completely free of impacts, and wind energy is no exception.”

The same could have also been said in response to the rare missteps within the oil industry. Instead, the left decided that Americans should be forced to switch to more “environmentally friendly” alternatives such as wind and solar energy.

As is so often the case, it now appears their solution is actually creating more problems than it solves.

–B. Christopher Agee

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/green-energy-company-faces-1-million-fine/#wVkUvBG8B8kldodv.99

12 Ways To Use Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals Against Liberals | Right Wing News

12 Ways To Use Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals Against Liberals | Right Wing News

12 Ways To Use Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals Against Liberals

Written By : John Hawkins
April 13, 2012

Saul Alinsky was a brilliant man. Evil, but brilliant. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, everyone on the Left from the President on down is playing by his rules in the political arena. Not all liberals have read his book or know his name, but his tactics have become universal. Sadly for conservatives, when two evenly matched forces go head-to-head outside of a fairy tale, the side that tries to play nice usually ends up with its head in a box. So, don’t lie or become an evil person like Alinsky, but learn from what he wrote and give the Left a taste of its own medicine.

---

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.
…The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
…the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
…the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
…the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.
…the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
…The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. — Rules for Radicals

1) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Boycotts have fallen out of favor on the Right because the Left has used that tactic to target conservative radio. This is a mistake. That’s because there are a lot more conservatives than there are liberals and we’re much more capable of using the tactic effectively. There are roughly 120 million people who identify with conservatism in this country and almost twice as many Christians. When there are threats that Christians and conservatives will refuse to go see movies, stop buying products, or cancel subscriptions, it will scare some people straight. That threat should be used and carried out much more often.
2) Never go outside the experience of your people. Want to know why Republicans are so terrible at reaching out to minorities? Because identity politics works really, really well and conservatives tend to oppose it on principle. So, white Republicans are constantly trying to go outside of their experience and reach out to minorities who are generally disinclined to listen to them because they have the wrong skin color. When the GOP accepts reality, adopts the tactics of the Democratic Party, and starts paying off our own Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons to reach out to minority groups and call Democrats racists, we’ll start making inroads with minorities for the first time in decades.
3) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. The GOP often foolishly retreats from social issues. This is a huge mistake in an era when 76% of the country is Christian and most liberals find sincere Christian beliefs to be repellent. We don’t have to preach at anyone, wag our fingers, or turn into legions of Ned Flanders, but we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about our Christian beliefs, stick up for Christians who are under attack, and hammer the Left for its anti-Christian bigotry. Conservatism is a pro-Christian ideology and liberalism is an anti-Christian ideology. We should never be afraid to drive that point home.
4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. This is something conservatives have gotten much better at in the last few years, but we seldom take it far enough. If we did, a tax cheat who advocates higher taxes could certainly never be our Treasury Secretary, Barack Obama would be afraid to associate with race hustlers like Al Sharpton or one percenters like Warren Buffet, and Al Gore would have either given up his mansion or his status as the leader of the cult of global warming.
4A) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Conservatives have a tendency to try to win every debate with logic and recitations of facts which, all too often, fail to get the job done because emotions and mockery are often just as effective as reason. The good news is that liberals almost never have logic on their side; so they’re incapable of rationally making the case for their policies while conservatives can become considerably more effective debaters by simply adding some emotion-based arguments and sheer scorn to their discourse. This has certainly worked on Twitter, where conservatives keep making the Obama campaign look like buffoons by taking over its hashtags.
6) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. Sometimes Republicans get too serious about politics. Why not hold a fund raiser at the gun range? What’s wrong with having Kid Rock or a bunch of popular country musicians play at a massive voter registration drive? How about building some giant puppet heads of our own, featuring Nancy Pelosi injecting botox into her face or Barack Obama punching the Pope in the stomach? A little controversy and a fun draw in the eyeballs and gets people excited.
7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. This one seems self-explanatory, but in practice, it can be tough to keep things on a timeline. This is what happened to the Occupy Movement, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Republican race for the presidency, too. If it goes on too long, people sour on it whether it’s a war, an election, or a tactic.
8) Keep the pressure on. Conservatives fall down on this one all the time. Just when Obama’s SuperPac was starting to feel real pressure over taking a million dollar donation from Bill Maher, conservatives eased up. This is also why liberal film stars feel so comfortable trashing conservatives, Christians, and Americans — even right before their film comes out. It’s because we get offended, shrug our shoulders, and then almost immediately let it go. Sometimes, an apology doesn’t fix everything. How often do liberals accept an apology at face value and let an issue go?
9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. How about we treat the Left to some of its own medicine? Libs throw a pie at a conservative author on campus; then we promise to shower every liberal speaker on the same campus with garbage. They post a conservative address online; we post two liberal addresses online. They hold a protest at someone’s house; then we hold a protest at someone’s house. They hit one of our politicians with glitter; we hit one of their politicians with coal dust. Liberals have a mentality that says, “Everything we do is harmless, but everything conservatives do is potentially dangerous.” Yet, we’re usually too well behaved to copy their tactics. Mimic those tactics once or twice and the Libs will freak out so hard that they’ll start declaring it to be off limits for everyone, including their own activists.
10) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. When you launch an attack, tie it in as part of a theme and never stop hammering the theme as long as it’s true and it works. John Kerry is a flip-flopper, Bill Clinton is a liar, Barack Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy — tie your attacks into themes that can be picked up on social media, talk radio, cable TV, and in the blogosphere over the long haul. Why does McDonald’s keep running ads? Because it may be that 50th ad or 100th ad you see that gets you to go buy a Big Mac, just as it may be the 50th or 100th time someone hears that Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy before it sticks.
11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. The winner in politics is almost always whoever is on offense. Liberals understand this in an intuitive way that most conservatives don’t. We think because we have this wonderful, honest, logical response to a charge that we’re scoring major points — but, except in rare cases, it’s not true. If you’re spending all of your time refuting the charges that you’re extreme, racist, hate women, and despise the poor — you’re losing. That’s because some people will assume where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and disbelieve you no matter how good your explanation may be. Additionally, if you’re busy defending yourself, you can’t go after the other side. Defend when you absolutely have to, but make sure most of your time is spent attacking relentlessly attacking.
12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Honestly, this is more of a liberal problem than a conservative one, since liberals always seem to be clamoring to rip out some functional necessity of American society so they can replace it with an ill-defined hodgepodge of ideas that they think will shift power their way or be less “mean.” Our ideas work; so coming up with a constructive alternative is seldom a problem.
13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Conservatives tend to do well with this one until they get to the last part. Polarization is at the core of the Left’s strategy. According to liberals, if you’re conservative, you hate blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Muslims, women, the poor, the middle class, the environment, and probably a half dozen other groups I’ve forgotten. Even when something is in front of our face, conservatives shy away from polarization. What’s wrong with pointing out how hostile the Democratic Party has become to Christianity? Why not point out the truth: that most white liberals are racists who think black Americas are too stupid and incompetent to compete with white Americans, which is why they push Affirmative Action and racial set asides? Why not note that liberals want poor Americans to stay poor and dependent, because as long as they do, they’ll keep voting for the Democrat Party? There’s a reason Barack Obama bows to foreign leaders, is constantly apologizing for America, attended an anti-white, anti-American church for 20 years, and it’s why his wife was proud of the country for the FIRST TIME because she thought it was going to elect her husband. The sad truth is that these are people who hate and despise this country. What do you think “hope and change” appealed so much to Obama that he made it his theme? When you look at America as an evil, racist, unfair, horrible place to live inhabited by ignorant trash and “bitter clingers,” what else would you do other than hope for change? If you love this country and the values it represents, the people in the White House not only don’t share your values, they hold people like you in utter contempt.

President admits ObamaCare not the ‘smart political thing’ in letter

President admits ObamaCare not the ‘smart political thing’ in letter

By Emily Smith

November 27, 2013 | 5:21am

Modal Trigger

President Obama admitted that ObamaCare was not the "smart political thing" in a letter to a Texas teacher.

Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

President Obama admits in a handwritten letter to a Texas schoolteacher that ObamaCare is not the “smart political thing” and that he is bogged down by a “toxic political environment.”
Thomas J. Ritter wrote to the president ­expressing his dismay over the Affordable Health Care Act, and was surprised to get a response penned by Obama on official White House ­stationery.
Ritter, a fifth-grade teacher at Sally B. Elliott ­Elementary in Irving, Texas, had written to the president: “This bill has caused such a ­divisive, derisive and toxic environment . . . The reality is that any citizen that disagrees with your ­administration is targeted and ridiculed.”

Ritter continued: “I hesitated to write for fear of some kind of retribution . . . I watched you make fun of tea baggers and your press secretary make fun of Ms. [Sarah] Palin which was especially beneath the dignity of the White House . . . Do the right thing not the political thing. Suggest a bill that Americans can support.”
Obama responded: “I . . . appreciate your concern about the toxic political environment right now. I do have to challenge you, though, on the notion that any citizen that disagrees with me has been ‘targeted and ridiculed’ or that I have ‘made fun’ of tea baggers . . . [I] defend strongly the right of everyone to speak their mind — ­including those who call me ‘socialist’ or worse.
“I believe that health care reform will be the right thing for the country . . . It certainly wasn’t the smart ‘political’ thing! And I hope that in the months to come, you will keep an open mind and evaluate it based not on the political attacks but on what it does or doesn’t do to improve people’s lives. Sincerely, Barack Obama.”
Ritter, 49, is putting the letter up for auction through the Web site momentsintime.com for a reserve price of $24,000. Ritter said, “I am selling the letter because I am just so disappointed, and this ObamaCare bill is wrong. The president told me what he thought I wanted to hear. The letter is just words on a paper. It doesn’t mean anything to me because Obama doesn’t mean any of it.”

Obama Resorted to Derogatory Name Calling. - Downtrend.com

Obama Resorted to Derogatory Name Calling. - Downtrend.com

Obama Resorted to Derogatory Name Calling.

By EmilyH on November 27, 2013 Subscribe to EmilyH's Feed

When a liberal is backed against a wall, they come out swinging. And they are usually swinging profanities, derogatory names, and other childish weapons of choice. So it’s no surprise that when Obama was backed against the wall by the Tea Party, he came back swinging using the term “tea baggers.”
The term “tea baggers” is a term used to insult the Tea Party and its supporters. Usually someone in the Oval Office would have enough decorum to not use such a statement against a group of people, but that’s not the case with Obama.
In a hand-written letter to a Texas schoolteacher, Obama said pursuing Obamacare was “the right thing to do.” He then made a statement in “support” of ‘tea baggers’ who protest the ACA. How is that support of the Tea Party when you just insulted them? So childish.
Obama wrote the letter on official White House paper in response to Thomas J Ritter. Ritter had written Obama in regards to the “toxic” political environment that surrounds the ACA. And, naturally, Obama came back swinging.
“This bill has caused such a ­divisive, derisive and toxic environment,” Ritter wrote, according to the Post. “The reality is that any citizen that disagrees with your ­administration is targeted and ridiculed.”
They are targeted and ridiculed! That’s what liberals do! They whine, insult, bare their fangs, and try to hurt anyone who attacks their policy. It’s all they know how to do in order to save face.
Ritter added, “I hesitated to write for fear of some kind of retribution,” he added. “I watched you make fun of tea baggers and your press secretary make fun of Ms. [Sarah] Palin which was especially beneath the dignity of the White House … Do the right thing not the political thing. Suggest a bill that Americans can support.”
Much to Ritter’s surprise, he got this response:
“I … appreciate your concern about the toxic political environment right now. I do have to challenge you, though, on the notion that any citizen that disagrees with me has been ‘targeted and ridiculed’ or that I have ‘made fun’ of tea baggers … [I] defend strongly the right of everyone to speak their mind — ­including those who call me ‘socialist’ or worse,” Obama wrote.
Well he may defend strongly the right for people to speak their mind, but he sure as heck gets defensive when they do. And what fate shall befall this infamous hand-written letter? Ritter is putting it up for sale on momentsintime.com.
Well played Ritter, well played!

Fisker bankruptcy costs US taxpayers $139 million - National Automotive | Examiner.com

Fisker bankruptcy costs US taxpayers $139 million - National Automotive | Examiner.com

Fisker bankruptcy costs US taxpayers $139 million

November 27, 2013

After months of speculation, Fisker Automotive filed for bankruptcy protection in last week, costing US taxpayers more than $139 million in the process, as well as an additional $20 million for those living in Delaware, where it was hoped that the car company would be able to “resurrect” production at the shuttered GM factory near Wilmington.
Based in Anaheim, CA., Fisker has been in freefall ever since receiving a loan commitment of $529 million from the Department of Energy as part of the Obama administration’s program to support “green-energy.” Fisker is reported to have drawn $192 million of that money, before the DOE suspended funding in 2011, after the automaker failed to achieve adequate sales figures for its $110,000 Karma plug-in hybrid (see http://www.examiner.com/article/fisker-fizzles).
After only being able to recoup $28 million of that money, the Department of Energy sold the remainder of its loan to Hong Kong billionaire Richard Li ‘s Hybrid Technology LLC, for only$25 million. Li is looking to purchase the automaker in bankruptcy, by utilizing a $75 million credit bid based on the money it is owed as the company's senior secured lender. Hybrid, however, announced it would not provide any no-fee bankruptcy financing to Fisker as it hammers out terms for the sale.
Although US Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross has put Fisker’s bankruptcy proceedings on the fast track by granting a hearing for the proposed sale on January 3rd.
In the meantime, attorneys for the U.S. trustee and for two unsecured creditors have voiced concerns over the pace of the proceedings, and a former employee has already filed a complaint in the Chapter 11 case claiming that he and another 160 workers were “terminated in April without the required 60 days' notice and are owed almost $4 million in unpaid wages and benefits.”
Fisker's Chapter 11 filing already has resulted in one lawsuit, with a former employee filing a complaint in the bankruptcy case Wednesday claiming that he and some 160 other workers were terminated in April without the required 60 days' notice and are owed almost $4 million in unpaid wages and benefits. A similar lawsuit was filed in April in federal court in California.

William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (1620-1647)

William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (1620-1647)

William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (1620-1647).

[William Bradford was the governor of the Plymouth Colony, and a devout adherent to the group known as Separatists (or Brownists), who believed that the Church of England had become so corrupt that the true believers needed to remove themselves from those churches. Hence, Bradford was committed to a particularly intense version of Puritanism.]

[Reasons for leaving England]
Chapter 1.
It is well knowne unto the godly and judicious, how ever since the first breaking out of the lighte of the gospell, in our Honourable Nation of England (which was the first of nations, whom the Lord adorned therewith, after that grosse darknes of popery which had covered, and overspread the christian worldf) what wars, and oppositions ever since Satan hath raised, maintained, and continued against the Saints, from time to time, in one sorte, or other. Some times by bloody death and cruell torments, other whiles Imprisonmerits, banishments, and other hard usages. As being loath his kingdom should goe downe, the truth prevaile; and the churches of God reverte to their ancient purity; and recover their primitive order, libertie, and beauty. But when he could prevaile by these means, against the many truths of the gospell, but that they began to take rooting in many places; being watered with the blood of the martyrs, and blessed from heaven with a gracious increase; He then begane to take him to his ancient stratagems, used of old against the first christians. That when by the bloody, and barbarous persecutions of the Heathen Emperours, he could not stop, and subverte the course of the Gospell; but that it speedily overspread, with a wonderful celerity, the then best known parts, of the world; He then begane to sow errors, heresies, and wonderful dissentions amongst the professors themselves (working upon their pride, and ambition; with other corrupt passions, incident to all mortall men; yea to the saints themselves in some measure'.): By which woeful effects followed; as not only bitter contentions, and heartburnings, schisms, with other horrible confusions. But Satan tooke occasion and advantage thereby to foist in a number of vile ceremonies, with many unprofitable Cannons, and decrees which have since been as snares, to many poore and peaceable souls, even to this day. . . .
The like methode Satan hath seemed to hold in these later times, since the truth begane to springe and spread after the great defection made by Antichrist that man of sin.
For to let pass the infinite examples in sundry nations, and severall places of the world, and instance in our owne. When as that old Serpente could not prevaile by those fiery flames and other his cruell Tragedies which he (by his instruments) put in use, every where in the days of queene Mary, and before. He then begane an other kind of war, and went more closely to worke, not only to [oppose], but even to ruinate and destroy the kingdom of christ, by more secrete and subtle means, by kindling , the flames of contention and sowing, the seeds of discorde, and bitter enmity amongst the professors (and seeming reformed) themselves. For when he could not prevaile (by the former means) against the principall doctrines of faith; he bente his force against the holy disipline, and outward regimente of the kingdom of christ, by which those holy doctrines should be conserved, and true piety maintained amongst the saints, and people of God.
Mr. Foxe recordeth, how that besides those worthy martyrs and confessors which were burned in queene Marys days and otherwise tormented, many (both students, and others) fled out of the land, to the number 800. . . .
The one side laboured to have the right worship of God, and discipline of christ, established in the church, according to the simplicity of the Gospell; without the mixture of men's inventions. And to have and to be ruled by the laws of Gods word; dispensed in those offices, and by those officers of pastors, Teachers, and Elders, &c., according to the Scriptures. The other party, (though under many colours, and pretences) endeavored to have the Episcopal dignity (after the popish manner) with their large power, and jurisdiction, still retained; with all those courts, cannons, and ceremonies, together with all such livings, revenues, and subordinate officers, with other such means, as formerly upheld their antichristian greatness. And enabled them with lordly, and tyrannous power to persecute the poore servants of God. This contention was so great, as neither the. honour of, God,, the common persecution, nor the mediation of Mr. Calvin, and other worthies of. the Lord, in those places, could prevaile with those thus Episcopally minded, but they proceeded by all means to disturbe the peace of this poor persecuted church. Even so far as to charge (very unjustly, and ungodly; yet prelate-like) some of their chief opposers, with rebellion, and high treason against the Emperour, and other such crimes. And this contention dyed not with queene Mary; nor was left beyonde the seas, but at her death these people returning into England under gracious queene Elizabeth, many of them being preferred to bishoprics, and other promotions, according to their aims and desires. That inveterate hatred against the holy discipline of christ in his church hath continued to this day. . . .
So many therefore (of these professors) I as saw the evill of these things (in these parts) and whose hearts the Lord had touched with heavenly zeale for his truth; they shooke of this yoke of Antichristian bondage. And as the Lords free people I joined themselves (by a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate, in the fellowship of the Gospell, to wale in all his ways, made known, to be made known unto them (according to their best endea[v]ours) whatsoever it should cost them, the Lord assisting them. And that it cost them something this ensewing historie will declare. . . .
But after these things; they could not long continue in any peaceable condition; but were hunted and persecuted on every side, so as their former afflictions were but as fleabitings in comparison of these which now came upon them. For some were taken and clapt up in prison, others had their houses besett and watcht night and day, and hardly escaped their hands; and the most were faine to fly and leave their houses and habitations, and the means of their livelihood. Yet these and many other sharper things which afterward befell them, were no other than they looked for, and therefore were the better prepared to bear them by the assistance of Gods grace and spirite; yet seeing themselves thus molested, [7] and that there was no hope of their continuance there, by a joint consent they resolved to goe into the Low-Countrys, where they heard was freedome of Religion for all men; as also how sundry from London, and other parts of the land had been exiled and persecuted for the same cause, and were gone thither; and lived at Amsterdam, and in other places of the land.' So after they had continued together aboute a year, and kept their meetings every Sabbath, in one place, or other, exercising the worship of God amongst themselves, notwithstanding all the diligence and malice of their adversaries, they seeing they could no longer continue in that condition, they resolved to get over into Holland as they could. Which was in the year 1607 and 1608 . . .
[Arrival at Plymouth - 1620]
Being thus arrived in a good harbor and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven, who had brought them over the vast and furious ocean, and delivered them from all the perils and miseries thereof, againe to set their feete on the firme and stable earth, their proper element. And no marvell if they were thus joyefull, seeing wise Seneca was so affected with sailing a few miles on the coast of his owne Italy; as he affirmed, that he had rather remaine twenty years on his way by land, then pass by sea to anyplace in a short time; so tedious and dreadfull was the same unto him.
But hear I cannot but stay and make a. pause, and stand half amazed at this poore peoples presente condition; and so I thinke will the reader too, when he well considers the same. Being thus passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before in their preparation (as may be remembered by that which wente before), they had now no friends to wellcome them, nor inns to entertaine or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies, no houses or much less townes to repaire too, to seeke for succor. It is recorded in scripture as a mercy to the apostle and his shipwrecked company, that the barbarians showed them no small kindness in refreshing, them, but these savage barbarians, when they met with them (as after will appeare) were readier to fill their sides full of arrows than other wise. And for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of that country know them to be sharp and violent, and subjecte to cruell and feirce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown coast. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men? and what multitudes there might be of them they knew not. Nether could they, as it were, goe up to the tope of Pisgah, to view from this wilderness a more goodly country to feed their hopes; for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to the heavens) they could have little solace or content in respecte of any outward objects. For summer being done, all things stand upon them with a wetherbeaten face; and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew. If they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar and gulf to seperate them from all the civill parts of the world. If it be said they had a ship to succor them, it is true; but what heard they daily from the m[aste]r and company? but tha twith speede they should looke out a place with their shallop, where they would be at some near distance; for the season was such as he would not stirr from thence till a safe harbor was discovered by them where they would be, and he might goe without danger; and that victells consumed apace, but he must and would keepe sufficient for themselves and their returne. Yea, it was muttered by some, that if they got not a place in time, they would turne them and their goods ashore and leave them. Let it also be considered what weake hopes of supply and succor they left behinde them, that might bear up their minds in this sad condition and trialls they were under; and they could not but be very small. It is true, indeed, the affections and love of their brethren at Leyden was cordiall and entire towards them, but they had little power to help them, or themselves; and how the case stoode betweene them and the merchants at their coming away, hath allready been declared. What could now sustaine them but the spirite of God and his grace? May not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: Our fathers were English men which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this willdernes, but they cried unto the Lord, and he heard their voice, and looked on their adversity, etc. Let them therefore praise the Lord, because he is good, and his mercies endure for ever. Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord, show how he hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. When they wandered in the deserte [and] willdernes out of the way, and found no citie to dwell in, both hungrie, and thirstie, their soul was overwhelmed in them. Let them confess before the Lord his loving kindnes, and his wonderfull works before the sons of men. . . .
[Social organization of property and economics at Plymouth - 1623]
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Gov[erno]r (with the advise of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Gov[erno]r or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly., into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.'
The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince they [the] vanitie of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the young men that were most able and fit for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to worke for other men's wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and cloaths, than he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victuals, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and younger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none objecte this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fitter for them.
[Conflicts with other colonists regarding revels & Indians. 1628]
About some 3 or 4 years before this time, there came over one Captaine Wollaston, (a man of pretie parts,) and with him 3 or 4 more of some eminency, who brought with them a great many servants, with provisions and other impl[elments for to begine a plantation; and pitched themselves in a place within the Massachusets, which they called, after their captain's name, Mount-Wollaston. Amongst whom was one Mr. Morton, who, it should seem, had some small adventure (of his owne or other men's) amongst them; but had little respecte amongst them, and was slighted by the meanest servants. Having continued there some time, and not finding things to answer their expectations, nor profite to arise as they looked for, Captaine Wollaston takes a great part of the servants, and transports them to Virginia, where he puts them off at good rates, selling their time to other men; and writes back to one Mr. Rasdall, one of his chief partners, and accounted their merchant, to bring another parte of them to Virginia likewise, intending to put them off there as he had done the rest. And he, with the consente of the said Rasdall, appointed one Fitcher to be his Lieutenant, and govern the remaines of the plantation, till he or Rasdall returned to take further order there about. But this Morton abovesaid having more craft than honesty, . . . in the others absence, watches an opportunity, (and commons being but hard amongst them), and got some strong drink and other junkets, and made them a feast; and after they were merry, he begane to tell them, he would give them good counsell. You see (saith he) that many of your fellows are carried to Virginia; and if you stay till this Rasdall returne, you will also be carried away and sold for slaves with the rest. Therefore I would advise you to thrust out this Lieutenant Fitcher; and I, having a parte in the plantation, will receive you as my partners and consociates; so may you be free from service, and we will converse, trade, plante, and live together as equalls, and supporte and protecte one another, or to like effecte. This counsell. was easily received; so they tooke opportunity, and thrust Lieutenan Fitcher out a doors, and would suffer him to come no more amongst them, but forced him to seeke bread to eat, and other relief from his neighbors, till he could get passages for England. After this they fell to great licenciousnes, and led a dissolute life, powering out themselves into all profanenes. And Morton became lord of misrule, and maintained (as it were) a school of Atheism. And after they had got some goods into their hands, and got much by trading with the Indians, they spent it as vainly, in quaffing and drinking both wine and strong waters in great excess, and, as some reported, £10 worth in a morning. They also set up a May-pole, drinking and dancing aboute it many days together, inviting the Indian women, for their consorts, dancing and frisking together, (like so many fairies, or furies rather,) and worse practises. As if they had anew revived and celebrated the feasts of the Roman Goddess Flora, or the beastly practises of the madd Bacchinalians . Morton likewise (to show his poetry) composed sundry rimes and verses, some tending to lasciviousnes, and others to the detraction and scandall of some persons, which he affixed to this idle or idoll May-pole. They changed also the name of their place, and instead of calling it Mount Wollaston, they call Merrymount, as if this joylity would have lasted ever. But this continued not long, for after Morton was sent for England, (as follows to be declared,) shortly after came over that worthy gentleman, Mr. John Indecott, who brought over a patent under the broad seal, for the government of the Massachusets, who visiting those parts caused that Maypole to be cut downe, and rebuked them for their profannes, and admonished them to looke there should be better walking; . . .
Now to maintaine this riotous prodigality and profuse excess, Morton, thinking himself lawless, and hearing what gaine the French and fisher-men made by trading of pieces, powder, and shot to the Indians, he, as the head of this consortship, begane the practise of the same in these parts; and first he taught them how to use them, to charge, and discharge, and what proportion of powder to give the piece, according to the size or bigness of the same; and what shot to use for fowl, and what for deer. And having thus instructed them, he imployed some of them to hunte and fowl for him, so as they became far more active in that imploymente than any of the English, by reason of there swiftnes of foote, and nimblenes of body, being also quicksighted, and by continuall exercise well knowing the haunts of all sorts of game. So as when they saw the execution that a piece would doe, and the benefite that might come by the same, they became madd, as it were, after them, and would not stick to give any price they could attaine too for them; accounting their bowes and arrowes but baubles in comparison of them.
And here I may take occasion to bewail the mischief that this wicked man began in these parts, and which since base covetousness prevailing in men that should know better, hath now at length got the upper hand, and made this thing commone, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary; so as the Indians are full of pieces all over, both fowling pieces, muskets, pistols, etc. They have also their moulds to make shot, of all sorts, as muskett bulletts, pistoll bullets, swan and goose shot, and of smaller sorts; . . . Yea, it is well knowne that they will have powder and shot, when the English want it, nor cannot get it; and that in a time of war or danger, as experience hath manifested, that when lead hath been scarce, and men for their owne defence would gladly have given a groat a [pound], which is dear enough, yet hath it been bought up and sent to other places, and sold to such as trade it with the Indians, at 12 pence the [pound]; and it is like they give 3 or 4 s[shilling] the pound, for they will have it at any rate. And these things have been done in the same times, when some of their neighbors and friends are daily killed by the Indians, or are in danger thereof, and live but at the Indians mercy. Yea, some (as they have acquainted them with all other things) have told them how gunpowder is made, and all the materialls in it, and that they are to be had in their owne land; and I am confident, could they attaine to make salt-peter, they would teach them to make powder. O the horribleness of this villainy! how many both Dutch and English have been lately slain by those Indians, thus furnished; and no remedy provided, nay, the evill more increased, and the blood of their brethren sold for gaine, as is to be feared; and in what danger all these colonies are in is too well known. Oh! that princes and parliaments would take some timely order to prevente this mischief, and at length to suppress it, by some exemplary punishment upon some of these gain thirsty murderers, (for they deserve no better title,) before their collonies in these parts be over thrown by these barbarous savages, thus armed with their owne weapons, by these evill instruments, and traitors to their neighbors and country.
But I have forgot myself, and have been too long in this digression; but now to return. This Morton having thus taught them the use of pieces, he sold them all he could spare; and he and his consorts determined to send for many out of England, and had by some of the ships sente for above a score. The which being knowne, and his neighbors meeting the Indians in the woods armed with guns in this sorte, it was a terror unto them, who lived [strugglingly], and were of no strength in any place. And other places (though more remote) saw this mischief would quickly spread over all, if not prevented. Besides, they saw they should keep no servants, for Morton would entertaine any, how vile soever, and all the scum of the country, or any discontents, would flock to him from all places, if this nest was not broken; and they should stand in more fear of their lives and goods (in short time) from this wicked and debasted crew than from the salvages themselves.
So sundry of the chief of the stragling plantations, meeting together, agreed by mutuall consente to solicit those of Plymouth (who were then of more strength than them all) to join with them, to prevente the further growth of this mischief, and suppress Morton and his consorts before they grew to further head and strength. Those that joined in this action (and after contributed to the charge of sending him for England) were from Pascataway, Namkeake, Winismett, Weesagascusett, Natasco, and other places where any English were seated.' Those of Plymouth being thus sought too by their messengers and letters, and weighing both their reasons, and the commone danger, were willing to afford them their help; though themselves had least cause of fear or hurt. So, to be short, they first resolved jointly to write to him, and in a friendly and neighborly way to admonish him to forbear those courses, and sent a messenger with their letters to bring his answer. But he was so high as he scorned all advise, and asked who had to doe with him; he had and would trade pieces with the Indians in dispite of all, with many other scurillous terms full of disdain. They sente to him a second time, and bade him be better advised, and more temperate in his terms, for the country could not beare the injury he did; it was against their comone safety, and against the king's proclamation. He answered in high terms as before, and that the kings proclamation was no law; demanding what penalty was upon it. It was answered, more than he could bear, his majesty's displeasure. But insolently he persisted, and said the king was dead and his displeasure with him, and many the like things; and threatened withall that if any came to molest him, let them looke to themselves, for he would prepare for them. Upon which they saw there was no way but to take him by force; and having so far proceeded, now to give over would make him far more haughty and insolent. So they mutually resolved to proceed, and obtained of the Gov[erno]r of Plymouth to send Captaine Standish, and some other aide with him, to take Morton by force. The which accordingly was done; but they found him to stand stiffly in his defence, having made fast his doors, armed his consorts, set diverse dishes of powder and bullets ready on the table; and if they had not been over armed with drink, more hurt might have been done. They summoned him. to yield, but he kept his house, and they could get nothing but scoffs and scorns from him; but at length, fearing they would doe some violence to the house, he and some of his crew came out, but not to yield, but to shoot; but they were so steeled with drinke as their pieces were to heavy for them; himself with a carbine (over charged and allmost half filled with powder and shot, as was after found) had thought to have shot Captaine Standish; but he stepped to him, and put by his piece, and took him. Neither was there any hurt done to any of either side, save that one was so drunk that he ran his owne nose upon the point of a sword that one held before him as he entered the house; but he lost but a little of his hot blood. Morton they brought away to Plymouth, where he was kept, till a ship went from the Ile of Shoals for England, with which he was sente to the Counsell of New-England; and letters written to give them information of his course and carriage; and also one was sent at their commone charge to informe their Ho[no]rs more perticulerly, and to prosecute against him. But he foold of the messenger,' after he was gone from hence, and ~ough he wente for England, yet nothing was done to him, not much as rebuked, for ought was heard; but returned the next year.
["some kind of wickedness did grow" - 1642]
Marvelous it may be to see and consider how some kind of wickedness did grow and breake forth here, in a land where the same was so much witnessed against, and so narrowly looked unto, and severely punished when it was knowne; as in no place more, or so much, that I have known or heard of; insomuch as they have been somewhat censured, even by moderate and good men, for their severity in punishments. And yet all this could not suppress the breaking out of sundry notorious sins, (as this year, besides other, gives us too many sad precedents and instances,) especially drunkenness and uncleaness; not only incontinencie between persons unmarried, for which many both men and women have been punished sharply enough, but some married persons also. But that which is worse, even sodomy and buggery, (things fearful to name) have broke forth in this land, oftener than once. I say it may justly be marveled at, and cause us to fear and tremble at the consideration of our corrupte natures, which are so hardly bridled, subdued, and mortified; nay, cannot by any other means but the powerful worke and grace of Gods spirit. But (besides this) one reason may be, that the Devil may carry a greater spite against the churches of Christ and the gospell here, by how much the more they indea[v]our to preserve holiness and purity amongst them, and strictly punisheth the contrary when it ariseth either in church or commonwealth; that he might cast a blemish and staine upon them in the eyes of [the] world, who use to be rash in judgment. I would rather thinke thus, than that Satan hath more power in these heathen lands, as some have thought, than in more Christian nations, especially over Gods servants in them.
2. An other reason may be, that it may be in this case as it is with waters when their streams are stopped or dammed up, when they get passage they flow with more violence, and make more noise and disturbance, then when they are suffered to run quietly in their owne chanels. So wickedness being here more stopped by strict laws, and the same more nearly looked unto, so as it cannot run in a common road of liberty as it would, and is inclined, it searches every where, and at last breaks out where it gets vent.
3. A third reason may be, here (as I am verily persuaded) is not more evils in this kind, nor nothing near so many by proportion, as in other places; but they are here more discovered and seen, and made publick by due search, inquisition, and due punishment; for the churches looke narrowly to their members, and the magistrates over all, more strictly than in other places. Besides, here the People are but few in comparison of other places, which are full and populous, and lie hid, as it were, in a wood or thicket, and many horrible evils by that means are never seen nor known; whereas here, they are, as it were, brought into the light, and set in the plaine field, or rather on a hill, made conspicuous to the view of all.