July 4th – Independence or Security?

July 4th – Independence or Security?

by Thomas E. Brewton


We have forgotten why the Declaration of Independence was signed.


In 1776, American colonists were willing to risk their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor to maintain the self-government that they had laboriously established over the preceding century and a half.

Chief among their motivations, and the most common complaint from Georgia in the south to Massachusetts in the northeast, was protection of their private property rights. Hence the most famous of the War of Independence slogans: “No taxation without representation!”

In the succeeding two and a quarter centuries, liberal-Progressive-socialists have led our nation 180 degrees away from that orientation.

A letter-to-the-editors in the Wall Street Journal sums up the servility we now eagerly accept in order to worship our materialist god, the national political state:

“Ms. Shlaes is mystified that FDR is so revered; she fails to see the basic idea that FDR institutionalized — that our government is intended to protect our welfare. The first Roosevelt — Teddy — promoted this fresh idea in his New Nationalism speech in 1910. Then Progressive Republican TR supported Progressive Democrat FDR because he knew his ideas would finally be institutionalized. That is why TR is on Mount Rushmore, and FDR is revered — they made government-provided welfare a reality.”

President Roosevelt proudly proclaimed his abandonment of the founding ethos in his January 1944 annual message to Congress.

“The one supreme objective for the future…can be summed up in one word: Security….We can not be content, no matter how high the general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people…is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure. This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of of certain inalienable rights Ð among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however – as our industrial economy expanded – these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness….

“We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all…Among these are: the right to a useful and remunerative job…The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation….The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care…The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education. All these rights spell security.”

Security, however, amounts to selling one’s soul to the Devil for materialistic gain.

Hilaire Belloc described it in his 1912 book, “The Servile State.” He noted that, while the just-beginning socialist state in Great Britain was doing nice things for workers, it was at the price of their liberty to decide whether to work, when to work, or where to work…. Recipients of unemployment benefits, for example, had to report to employment offices and take whatever jobs were offered to them, or face punishment….

Socialism is a form of slavery, or more accurately, a sort of neo-feudalism in which the individual has no rights independent of the figurative “piece of ground” to which the political state has assigned him.

Assuredly, that is not what motivated members of the Continental Congress in 1776, nor of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Samuel Adams, while working to convene the first Continental Congress, wrote:

“Mr. Locke has often been quoted in the present dispute…and very much to our purpose. His reasoning is so forcible, that no one has ever attempted to confute it. He holds that “the preservation of property is the end of government, and that for which men enter into society. …… says he, it is a mistake to think that the supreme power of any commonwealth can dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or take any part of them at pleasure. The prince or the senate can never have a power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the subject’s property without their own consent: for this would be in effect to have no property at all.” – This is the reasoning of that great and good man. And is not our own case exactly described by him?”

John Jay, in Federalist No. 1, stated the purpose of the Constitution:


Servility of welfare-state security was not even on the radar screen in 1776 and 1787.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com


New Media Alliance Television


The Declaration of Independence We can only survive what the future holds if we understand and acknowledge our history. On this Independence Day we ask that you read The Declaration of Independence not with a glancing eye, but with a thirst for the true meaning of the document in context with the consequences of the times.

The Declaration of Independence
Government Thomas Jefferson
July 4, 2007

Editor’s Note: We can only survive what the future holds if we understand and acknowledge our history. On this Independence Day we ask that you read The Declaration of Independence not with a glancing eye, but with a thirst for the true meaning of the document in context with the consequences of the times.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

▪ He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

▪ He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

▪ He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

▪ He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

▪ He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

▪ He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

▪ He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

▪ He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

▪ He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

▪ He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

▪ He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

▪ He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

▪ He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

▪ He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

▪ He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

▪ He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

▪ He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

▪ He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
North Carolina
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John PennSouth Carolina
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

John HancockMaryland
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George RossDelaware
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

New York
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis MorrisNew Jersey
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett
William WhippleMassachusetts
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire
Matthew Thornton

Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States (1801–1809), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of Republicanism in the United States. As a political philosopher, Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment and knew many intellectual leaders in Britain and France. He idealized the independent yeoman farmer as exemplar of the republican virtue, distrusted cities and financiers, and favored states’ rights and a strictly limited federal government…[read more]

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

Online News Overtaking TV Newscasts

Online News Overtaking TV Newscasts

Online news will overtake TV newscasts as the world’s chief source of information within five years, according to a Harris Interactive poll.

The survey interviewed 8,749 adults living in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Australia.

The poll results were released to a receptive audience at a World Association of Newspapers convention in South Africa in June. Researchers were quoted as saying that while both TV and newspapers would suffer audience losses, TV would be the biggest loser.

Meanwhile, Magid Associates released a new study at the end of June showing that consumer usage of online video increased 56 percent this year among Internet users aged 12 to 64. About 14 percent go online daily, but if you separate out men 18 to 24, daily viewing jumps to a startling 80 percent.

Earlier in June, comScore released a study it had done of Internet users in March. The study showed more than 70 percent streamed video during the month. Google sites, paced by YouTube, got the biggest share in the comScore study, with 57.4 million unique visitors streaming 1.2 billion videos. Yahoo sites ranked second, but, at 434 million streams, were far behind. Fox Interactive placed third, with 421 million streams.

In all, more than 126 million Americans viewed streaming video in March.

The Magid study showed news stories as the most frequently viewed online category. Another study, titled “Frames of Reference,” from the Online Publishers Association showed that of 1,422 video users surveyed, 14 percent looked at news and current event segments, and 11 percent checked the weather daily, while only 8 percent spent their time on jokes.

The “Frames of Reference” survey showed that video advertising is more effective if it is on an online news site, rather than a Web portal. Researchers also looked at the impact of advertising on online video viewers, finding that 30-second ads beat the shorter 15-second spots, and of the 80 percent of viewers who watched an online ad, more than half took some sort of action. For example, 31 percent went to the company Web site and 28 percent looked for more information.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The above article is an edited version of excerpts from two articles about the decline of TV news that can be found in the July edition of The Broadcast Report, an online newsletter published by DWJ Television.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Sweetness of Freedom Words cannot express my contempt for this,

Sweetness of Freedom

Words cannot express my contempt for this,

Mr McMillan-Scott, Conservative MEP for Yorkshire and Humber, described Alan Johnston’s release as: “An enduring tribute to the sweetness of freedom, denied to his captors and the people of Gaza.”

Edward McMillan-Scott is a Conservative British Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for Yorkshire. He is a Vice-President of the European Parliament and a Patron of the BBC World Service Trust.
This is also the man who, on returning – he styles himself as “the European Parliament vice-president responsible for the Arab world” – from a progress through Palestine boasted about the Hamas green tie he had been given, and proudly wears at every opportunity. How he can conflate the captivity under permanent threat of death of the journalist to the situation in the West bank? The moral equivalence is disgraceful in the extreme.
MEP for Yorkshire, balls, MEP for Ramallah more like.

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

RoP: “Peaceful” Muslim Nations Threaten U.S. Over Slavery Sanctions

RoP: “Peaceful” Muslim Nations Threaten U.S. Over Slavery Sanctions

“Clearly Islam the religion is not the cause of terrorism. Islam, as I said, is a religion of peace.”
–Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamad, February 2002

“The Government of Malaysia does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so.”
–U.S. State Department, Trafficking in Persons Report, June 2007

You don’t want another 9/11, do you?

Malaysia dismissed on Monday possible U.S. sanctions over human trafficking and warned Washington of alienating Muslims after it blacklisted mostly Islamic countries.

The U.S. last month ranked Muslim states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Iran, Malaysia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Qatar — as among the worst human trade offenders, and said they may face sanctions.

“We are not bothered about … the sanctions,” Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said. “I don’t think we need to respond to that sort of pressure.”

“The U.S. really needs to be friendly to Muslim countries,” he told retired Malaysian diplomats.

Oh really? Do we now? Or else what?

Refresh my memory — exactly how much oil does Malaysia export, to the U.S. or anywhere else? Oh, right — zero. News flash for the Malaysians: Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchs might get to play that game with the U.S. You don’t. One wonders: If Malaysia’s Islamofascists can’t threaten us over oil, then what other Islamofascist tactic might they try?

Incidentally, how much success has Malaysia’s government had in preventing terrorist attacks by its citizens? Oh, right — zero, give or take. How can they? After all, they blame Malaysians’ penchant for terrorism on — get this — Israel (that is, when they aren’t busy hosting al Qaeda summits).

Did I mention that we’re talking about human trafficking? Another wonderful contribution of the Religion of Peace.

Thus ever with goat herders pretending to be “world leaders,” like kindergartners playing dress-up in mommy’s closet.

Obama and the Sojourners for Hamas

Obama and the Sojourners for Hamas

Ed Lasky
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has established ties with Sojourners: a liberal Christian group (with the emphasis on liberal) as a way to burnish his religious credentials and gain political strength. This very same group is supportive of Hamas, a vicious Palestinian terror group responsible for the deaths of many innocent people and a group that indoctrinates its youth to hate. Not to mention dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. What gives, Barack?

Obama spoke at their forum in Washington, D.C. last month ; he also spoke at the Sojourners Pentecost conference last year where he received an award.
I suppose this group is marginally better and certainly provide a better image for Obama than his much deeper ties to the controversial Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr. (his spiritual mentor)-who openly spouts anti-Israel invective, supports divestment actions against Israel, supports Louis Farrakhan (Judaism is a “gutter religion”) and travels to Libya to offer support to the arch-foe of Israel and sponsor of terror Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi (recall Lockerbie airplane bombing?)

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »