Let’s start with the timing. If some sort of change were really necessary and it was desired strongly enough, why wait until the beginning of a new year. If, for some reason, your doctor tells you to cut boiled artichokes from your diet, those who value our health would cut them out immediately, not wait until the end of the year.

Next we can look at the content of most resolutions. Most tend to revolve around ourselves and things we couldn’t bring ourselves to do any other way. For several years I was a member at a local fitness facility… a gym. Come January, the place would be packed, but by mid February, it would be back to normal. So many wanted to be in better shape, and they took the first step in signing up for a gym membership. Yet, when they found out about the work involved in getting into shape, enthusiasm and commitment faded rapidly.

So, perhaps, to be successful, it takes a resolution that goes beyond ourselves. If living healthier, or improving ourselves intellectually is not enough to get most of us to follow through on our commitment to be a better person there has to be another answer.

Resolutions come apart for two reasons. The first of which we’ve already looked at – the goal we are chasing needs to be bigger than ourselves… something we will extend ourselves and sacrifice for. The other thing is that we are trying to do it by ourselves. Matthew 6:27 (NIV) tells us “Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?” And this is followed up by “I can do all this through him who gives me strength.” (Philippians 4:13 NIV)

Just making a resolution that is not big enough to motivate us, making the wrong resolution, and trying to do it all on our own is a sure recipe for failure. What we need is to give the whole matter of changes – whether personal, social or political some serious thought and prayer. This means we are looking at giving the Father more than just a laundry list of wants, but spending time listening to the response.

Then, forget the resolutions. Make a decision based on what really needs to be done, and your part in it. Make that decision and make it work! A decision, unlike a resolution, is something that is not made lightly, and is not something that is forgotten lightly either.

Jacksonville, FL – Liberty Counsel sent a letter to the Clay County School District, demanding it stop interfering with constitutionally protected prayer prior to the start of the school day. For some time, students, some teachers, and community members have voluntarily gathered at the Flagpole at Clay Elementary School to pray prior to the start of the school day. But the district buckled under pressure from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which alleged that the district must stop the prayer. The FFRF demanded that all prayer at the flagpole cease immediately, stating that “it is grossly inappropriate.” In response, Liberty Counsel sent a letter to the district setting forth the law.

The district cannot prohibit constitutionally protected religious speech or prayer during individuals’ free time. The United States Department of Education has issued guidelines addressing constitutionally protected prayer, entitled “Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.” These guidelines state in part:

“Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and ‘see you at the pole’ gatherings before school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups. Such groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other non-curricular groups, without discrimination because of the religious content of their expression.”

Regarding teachers, the guidelines state: “Teachers may, however, take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities.”

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Public schools may not interfere with constitutionally protected prayer. Before or after school hours or at other noninstructional times, students may pray. Teachers may also participate in prayer on their own time to the same extent they can participate in other secular activity.”

[As he left public life, George Washington had serious concerns for the country he helped bring into being. He had surprising insights into the situations this new nation would face and (often ignored) advice on avoiding pitfalls that have destroyed other nations in the past. The language is difficult to comprehend at times, but we can learn from his wisdom or we can continue to ignore it at our peril.]

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it – It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.

[As he left public life, George Washington had serious concerns for the country he helped bring into being. He had surprising insights into the situations this new nation would face and (often ignored) advice on avoiding pitfalls that have destroyed other nations in the past. The language is difficult to comprehend at times, but we can learn from his wisdom or we can continue to ignore it at our peril.]

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

[Conclusion tomorrow]

by Congressman Randy Forbes

Military leaders have described U.S. forces as on the “ragged edge.”  What does this mean? Let’s take a look:

The United States has a shrinking force. In 1990, the U.S. had a 546-ship Navy; today we have 288. The U.S. had 76 Army brigades in 1990; today we have 45. Two decades ago, the Air Force had twice as many fighter squadrons and bombers as today.

The United States has a strained force. In the last four years, inspection failures for Navy ships have nearly tripled. Currently, 1 of 5 ships inspected is either unfit for combat or severely degraded, and a majority of the Navy’s deployed aircraft is unable to accomplish all assigned missions. Navy Adm. Jonathan Greenert indicated that “the stress on the force is real, and it has been relentless.” Marine Corps stockpiles of critical equipment such as radios, small arms and generators face severe shortages. Over a third of active Army units do not have sufficient personnel to perform their missions; an even higher percentage of units in the Reserve face similar challenges. Gen. Philip Breedlove provided his candid assessment: “Some portions of the Air Force are right at the ragged edge.”

The United States has an aging force. Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago; bombers average 34 years in age. Our tankers are nearly 50 years old.

[Congressman Forbes has introduced the Strong Defense: Strong America bill... and it is only four pages long!  Read it here.]

New York, NY – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reference to the United Nations as the “theater of the absurd” is an apt description of an organization that was designed to bring peace among nations. The UN has lost its legitimacy in light of recent events.

Rather than entertain a request for statehood of the Palestinian Authority (PA), presented Friday by Mahmoud Abbas, the UN should reject it outright. The PA’s request for statehood includes the Gaza strip, Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank), and the Golan Heights, but the PA does not control the West Bank or the Golan Heights, where hundreds of thousands of Israelis live and where Israel provides security. How can the UN entertain a request for statehood on land not controlled by the entity making the application?

Abbas and the PA sanction terrorism against Jews and refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, Abbas denies the Holocaust. Abbas, using his other name, Abu Mazen, studied at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, where he earned a doctorate degree and wrote a dissertation entitled, “The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement,” in which he attempted to prove that the Nazi Holocaust of Jews never occurred. As Abbas denies the Holocaust of the Jews, refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and sponsors terrorism against innocent Jews, he is in the same company as Hitler or other leaders of genocide.

Last week the UN allowed Ahmadinejad to spew his hatred of the Jews. The UN’s judgment and policies have become a farce. Gadhafi’s Libya once chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq headed the UN Committee on Disarmament. Today the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon presides over the UN Security Council, resulting in a terrorist organization presiding over a body tasked with keeping the world safe.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “America ought to take a leadership role and end the absurd practices of the United Nations. The UN’s policies award terror and punish those truly seeking peace. The UN has become dominated by Muslim-controlled countries and can no longer be trusted to keep its original mission of making the world safe for all. The theater of the absurd needs to begin a new chapter.”

Those over educated imbeciles, appointed by the president have taken there research, and, primarily, their opinions to be the gospel of human survival and are preaching it to all who will listen, and imposing it on those who won’t. It is to those who won’t bow down at the altar of governmental desire that they feel the government’s power is needed to persuade them of the error their ways in the area of dietary righteousness.

Rules are being formulated that will compel companies like Kelloggs, Mars, and even the good old Girl Scouts to fall into line with the edicts from above, or loose the ability to advertise the offending products or promote them in any way. As with much activity from the current regime, they are doing this outside the legislative will of the people, or even congress.

The product of congressional action is intrusive enough, dictating the kind of bulbs we light our homes with and the kind of toilets we use to flush away our waste, but these new insertions into our daily lives are the result of plots and schemes originating with people who are totally unaccountable to anyone, except their boss in the White House.

All this is done in the name of the common good with the high sounding goal of reducing childhood obesity and the President’s wife is spearheading the effort. Considering the success this first family has had in solving any of our national problems, it would seem that the best thing they could do to cut down on chubby children would be keep their hands off the food consumption entirely. If they want us to have any confidence in their ability, they may want to begin by having Mrs. Obama approach the appearance of Twiggy or demonstrate that she at least has some sort of concept of slenderizing in her head.

The idea that unelected regulators can tell the makers of perfectly legal products that they need to reformulate their products in order to promote them or let them die on the shelves, is not an American way. Tea has been thrown into Boston harbor over lesser offenses. There is no problem with listing ingredients so consumers can make their own decisions. But these manipulators have decided that the American public is too stupid to make such a nutritional decisions… they must be helped by their betters who are “smarter than the average bear” as Yogi would say.

It’s not just one agency coming against the American dietary freedom, but a cabal composed of the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture is proposing this dictatorial decree. They are ganging up on, not just cereals that get kids to eat breakfast, such staples as Thin Mints and M&Ms.

What kind of dark, depraved, soulless creature would be against the Girl Scouts and Thin Mints. All of their cookies are wonderful, but it is the Thin Mints that make the visit from the girls in green worthwhile. And M&Ms – the little candy that melts in mouth and not in your hands – next thing, they’ll be going after the peanuts and chocolate in Snickers bars. These broccoli saturated bureaucrats seem determined to remove the enjoyment of eating and replace it with the simple absorption of sustanence so we can work to meet the needs of the state.

This is part of the non-dollar price we will be paying for government run health insurance. They already feel they have the right to tell us what we can do so we will make less use of their system.

For those of you who enjoy broccoli, asparagus and fennel, eat and enjoy it. But please, please don’t do it just because Big Brother tells you to. For freedom lovers everywhere, let your representatives know you are not happy with attempts by our government to make you live long enough to get to the point where they won’t give you medical care any more because you are too old. Strike a blow for freedom – next time you are in the grocery store, annoy a liberal, pick up a pack of M&Ms and a box of Frosted Flakes. They’re Grrrrreat! Let Tony know we are standing with him.

See what Glenn Beck had to say…

As we moved forward from that calamity in Tuscon, the left kept up their vicious and, largely unfounded, attacks on anyone exhibiting even a minor degree of common sense. During that time the semi-loyal opposition maintained, in general, a more gentlemanly and ladylike demeanor, refusing to call the regime and its’ supporters on the vile and disgusting behavior and speech visible on the nightly news and in the blogosphere.

In some ways it is a credit to these American patriots that they did not stoop to the level of their opponents. Their behavior was usually measured and circumspect. In some ways it makes one wonder if they take the battle to save our republic as seriously and those who stand against our liberties do. As I noted before, their behavior was usually measured and circumspect – except when it came to dealing with opponents from within their own camp.

While Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment said Republicans should not speak ill of other Republicans, the rule in usually applied in defense of someone in the process of being declared a RINO for deserting generally accepted or at least supposed Republican orthodoxy. It is rarely applied to those in the more conservative or libertarian wings of the party. Whether the commandment itself was ever really appropriate is the subject of another discussion, but the things we see today show the concept has is rarely operative.

Perhaps the greatest intra-party hostility revolves around Congressman Ron Paul. Many of his non-supporters feel the need to join the formerly main stream media in showing their superiority by declaring him to be a nutcase and questioning the Americanism and intelligence of anyone who may give him the time of day. Many of his supporters add to the hostility by holding the same opinion, often very vocally, in the face of anyone who does not fall in line one hundred percent with their idea of his positions. The fact that he has some very valid points with respect to the Federal Reserve and other issues is totally lost… which is exactly what the central bankers, media pundits and big government types want.

Second to the congressman from Texas is the lady from Alaska, Sarah Palin, whose plain talking style and lack of acquiescence to the niceties of old time politics has earned her the scorn of beltway bandits from both parties – from Democrats, because she scares the living daylights out of them because of the way she relates to the Joe Lunchbox and from the old timers in her party, it’s because she scares the living daylights out of them because of the way she relates to the Joe Lunchbox. Attacks from the left are to be expected, especially against those they fear the most, but those from the right are manifestations of two political phenomenon. The first is that Sarah Palin does represent a threat to the status quo for those who are content to keep a firm control on a minority party. The second is that, for some unexplained and unexplainable reason, some Republican feel the need to be liked an respected by Democrats and the formerly mainstream media… and it will never happen.

Then there is Michelle Bachmann, who has seen the beating Sarah Palin takes every time she shows up somewhere or opens her mouth, yet she has jumped into the fray. This is a woman of courage. Of course she is getting the same treatment inside and outside her party that the vice-presidential candidate gets. And she keeps on going.

To a lesser extent, Herman Cain gets beaten around some as the newcomer from the outside. I would hate to think it is because of the color of his skin. This would give credence to the liberal lies about the conservatives of the world. There are some questions he would need to answer, but he does not deserve the treatment he gets either.

The thing we have to realize is that someone has to run against Barack Hussein Obama. We need to stop burning bridges or erecting barriers between the various factions of the conservative/libertarian opposition. It is great to support the candidate of your choice, but of those in the field, only one will carry the banner. Let’s not inflict such serious wounds on each other that we cannot come together to drive the pretender from the White House.

The aforementioned formerly mainstream media have already anointed Mitt Romney as the front runner and they, along with many inside the party as well tell us he is the man to beat. While the man has nice hair, we need to be wary of our opponents giving us such advice. It is only by thinking for ourselves and having a “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” that we can arrive at the candidate to replace the man in the White House. Let’s concentrate on adding Barack Hussein Obama to the unemployment rolls and work together to support someone who will bring about real change we can believe in.

He is acting like there is no changing the commitments, when in reality there is. We are told that there are some discretionary expenses, and entitlements which cannot be touched. Here is where he is wrong! Giveaways were passed and they can be repealed… and they can be adjusted. Progressives act as if one of their foolish expenses, once passed, can never be changed. He and his socialist advisors cannot conceive of putting a stop to such foolish spending as giving our dollars, our borrowed dollars, to countries that hate us. They cannot comprehend cutting off funds for such foolishness as gay film festivals in foreign venues, or hair brained research by the academic community. Once again we are back to the “We spent the money already suckers… now you pay for it!”

He was talking about the so-called August 2 deadline when we will have supposedly reached the point where we cannot pay our bills as a nation. He cannot comprehend, he says, cutting back on any of the commitments of taxpayer dollars that he and his cronies have made. He would rather drive us deeper into debt than take the actions necessary to extract us from the pit of indebtedness.

He still is talking about the need for more “investment” in infrastructure, education (read indoctrination) and other miscellaneous pork. It’s like listening to a broken record – for those old enough to remember such things. These are the same solutions he proposed at the beginning of his term… and they still have not worked – and will not work.

He continued by telling us that if congress does not give him the additional credit authorization, we will have to begin deciding which bills we will pay and which ones we will not. He does not want to do this. Families who have suffered under his lack of leadership have been doing this for years, yet the President is unwilling to make the tough choices himself. It may be that he actually believes that the way out of this man-made disaster is to keep doing what we have been doing, and expecting different results. Sounds something like one definition of insanity, doesn’t it?

He calls the people selfish when they cry out against increasing the debt ceiling and piling more and more of a financial burden on their offspring who are innocently watching Barney and Nina while being indoctrinated by the latest iteration of Cars. He calls the people selfish when they denounce his plans to spend even more money that we just don’t have. He tells us we are selfish when we want to keep what we have worked for because we think we can use our resources more efficiently and effectively than some overpaid bureaucrat can. He says we are selfish when we want to leave something to our children and grandchildren rather than have his progressive cohorts redistribute it to those who have not done anything to deserve it.

Today, Barack Hussein Obama declared that he has found all the spending cuts that can be found and if we are going to have the America he envisions, no more can be made. It is clear that any form of fiscal sanity will have to be imposed on this would be benefactor from the outside. This is where we need to depend on the courage and responsibility of our elected representatives. This can be a frightening thought, but will result in less damage to our country than other alternatives.

Whatever path is chosen, it must bring a halt to the destructive debt being loaded on the American people. If we don’t get the job done, we may be looking to countries like Greece and Spain to bail US out.

In the weeks since Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s warning that the U.S. would hit its debt limit of $14.3 trillion by May 16, debate about whether to increase the debt ceiling has exploded.

The most inflammatory rhetoric we’re hearing is the threat that failure to raise the debt limit would automatically cause the U.S. to default on our national debt. This claim, thankfully, is baseless.

Whether or not the debt ceiling is raised, the federal government collects significantly more revenue than it needs to fulfill U.S. debt obligations. According to projections for next year, interest payments on our national debt will represent 6.5% of total federal government expenditures, and tax revenue will cover about 67% of all government spending. Thus, if the debt ceiling is reached, the government will still have ten times as much revenue as it needs to make debt payments. The only way the U.S. will immediately default upon reaching the debt ceiling is if the government actively chooses to do so by not making debt payments.

We can—and must—make paying the national debt our top priority. The Full Faith and Credit Act, which I have cosponsored, offers a simple safeguard to prevent default. This bill would ensure that the U.S. government does not default on its debt by requiring the Treasury to prioritize payments on the public debt over any other payments in the event the debt ceiling is not raised.

Allowing the U.S. to default on its debts would jeopardize the full faith and credit of the U.S. government and pose unthinkable risks to our economic prosperity and national security. Defaulting would result in the U.S. being stripped of its AAA credit rating and could cause the dollar to lose its status as the world’s reserve currency. In turn, we would soon see sky-high interest rates, rapid inflation, and a deteriorating standard of living for the American taxpayers.

The recent explosion in government spending has caused our debt to skyrocket, and it has become clear that the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path. The Full Faith and Credit Act would reassure our creditors that the U.S. will honor its debts and is serious about making significant spending cuts in order to do so. The passage of this bill would affirmatively tell investors that the U.S. is determined to change its current path of skyrocketing debt and unprecedented expansions in government spending.

By taking the unthinkable option of default off the table, the Full Faith and Credit Act would eliminate the distractions of inflammatory rhetoric and allow Congress to have a productive debate about how to rein in the government’s out-of-control spending and return the United States to a sustainable fiscal path.

Countless American families have faced comparable situations, where they realize that their income will be inadequate to meet their current spending levels. Most react to this situation by reassessing their finances and determining where they can cut back on future spending.

There’s no reason Congress can’t do the same.