After being driven out of New York by the British and forced to retreat to the West bank of the Delaware during the late summer of 1776, the American cause was at a low ebb. In the harsh winter Washington was faced with the annual crisis of the expiry of the Continental Army’s period of enlistment. He resolved to attack the Hessian position at Trenton on the extreme southern end of the over extended British line along the Delaware, before his army dispersed.
Washington’s plan was to cross the Delaware at three points with a force commanded by Lt Col Cadwallader with a Rhode Island regiment, some Pennsylvanians, Delaware militia and two guns, a second force under Brigadier Ewing of militia and the third commanded by himself which would cross the river above Trenton and attack the Hessian garrison in the town. Washington had as his subordinates, Major Generals Nathaniel Greene and John Sullivan. …
It was a cold dark night and the river was running with flowing ice. At about 11pm a heavy snow and sleet storm broke. Washington’s force did not reach the east bank until around 3am. His soldiers were badly clothed and many did not have shoes.
Washington’s men then marched to Trenton, some of the men leaving traces of blood on the snow. …
The Hessians attempted to form in the town but were under artillery fire and attack from front and rear. The Americans occupied the houses and shot down the German gunners and foot soldiers during which Colonel Rahl was fatally wounded. Rahl’s troops retreated to an orchard in the South East of the town where they surrendered.
Ewing and Cadwallader failed to make the river crossing and took no part in the attack. Casualties: The Americans suffered 4 wounded casualties. It is said that in addition two American soldiers froze to death. The Hessians suffered 20 killed and around 100 wounded. 1,000 were captured.
Follow-up: The effect of the battle of Trenton was out of all proportion to the numbers involved and the casualties. The American effort across the colonies was galvanized and the psychological dominance achieved by the British in the preceding year overturned. Howe was stunned that a strong German contingent could be surprised in such a manner and put up so little resistance. Washington’s constant problem was to maintain the enthusiasm of his army for the war, particularly with the system of one year recruitment and Trenton proved a much needed encouragement.
Tradition: • Washington’s army crossing the Delaware in the freezing conditions has become an important national image for the United States as can be seen in Emmanuel Leutze’s picture. • Present at the battle were: two other future presidents James Madison and James Monroe, the future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.
Truly a glorious event worthy of celebration.
Oh, yes, and I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas, too! I'm not a Christian, but I love Christmas. Christians have long had the best music, from classics like Ave Maria and Missa Solemnis, to anything ever sung by George Beverly Shea, to countless wonderful Christmas songs. But no Christmas song is better than Mel Tormé's The Christmas Song, sung by the Velvet Fog himself. Enjoy!
French President Nicolas Sarkozy addressed a joint session of Congress yesterday, and he spoke passionately about why he loves America (emphasis added):
The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them.
The deliberations of your Congress are conducted under the double gaze of Washington and Lafayette. Lafayette, whose 250th birthday we are celebrating this year and who was the first foreign dignitary, in 1824, to address a joint session of Congress. What was it that brought these two men-so far apart in age and background-together, if not their faith in common values, the heritage of the Enlightenment, the same love for freedom and justice?
Upon first meeting Washington, Lafayette told him: "I have come here to learn, not to teach." It was this new spirit and youth of the Old World seeking out the wisdom of the New World that opened a new era for all of humanity.
From the very beginning, the American dream meant putting into practice the dreams of the Old World.
From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.
America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who-with their hands, their intelligence and their heart-built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.
Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.
Happy Independence Day! On this day in 1776, the Continental Congress, meeting as a committee of the whole, finished editing Jefferson's draft and voted to adopt the Declaration of Independence. Rush Limbaugh's site has the text of his father's wonderful speech about the signers (that link will likely quit working in a day or two). Here's an excerpt:
Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half – 24 – were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.
With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.
Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."
Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."
These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.
They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.
It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be U.S. Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)
Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.
"The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.
"If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."
Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.
You know (or should) what happened to Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Hancock. What about the other signers, the ones whose names you don't know? Go read about these anonymous heroes and the price they paid while this link still works. Then go enjoy a juicy burger and an icy brew. And raise your glass in a toast to Liberty.
Speaking of slippery slopes, remember when the concept of "hate crimes" first developed? The idea was to add extra punishment to already criminal behavior if it was motivated by hatred of a protected group (generally race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation). I've never liked the idea. If someone beats you up because they don't like your skin color or ability to accessorize, why is that somehow worse than if they beat you up because they don't like skinny people, or people who wear black, or people who don't look at them the right way?
Now, there's an even bigger problem with the concept of "hate crime." It used to require both elements — hate and a crime. But now, the expression of hatred itself has become a crime, and the First Amendment be damned:
WOODSTOCK, Ill. – A pair of 16-year-old girls face hate crime charges after they allegedly handed out anti-gay fliers targeting a classmate at their northern Illinois high school.
The girls were arrested May 11 after handing out fliers in the parking lot of Crystal Lake South High School that depict a male student kissing another boy and contain hateful language about gays.
Officials say the fliers targeted a male classmate, who is also a neighbor of the girls. The two girls had apparently been feuding with the boy.
Earlier today, a judge rejected bond for one of the girls, citing her home environment and already lengthy juvenile record – 13 run-ins with the cops. Instead of home detention, the girl will be held at the Kane County Juvenile Justice Center while the case is pending, according to the Daily Herald.
The first girl is a pretty unsympathetic defendant:
Earlier today, a judge rejected bond for one of the girls, citing her home environment and already lengthy juvenile record – 13 run-ins with the cops. Instead of home detention, the girl will be held at the Kane County Juvenile Justice Center while the case is pending, according to the Daily Herald.
But, damn! Jailed without bond for using "hateful language"? For handing out fliers?
They warned me that if I voted for Bush, America would become a police state. Looks like they were right.
It's a civics quiz. No, it's a citizenship test. No, it's the Fifth Carnival of Principled Government! Head on over there and check out Dana's clever carnival format, as Principled Discovery continues its quest to "uphold our founders' vision for our nation as found in our founding documents." Good stuff.
Speaking of carnivals, I finally dropped by Dana's Fourth Carnival of Principled Government, and you should, too. The theme of this one is character and virtue; the posts are few, but thought-provoking. Dana posted it less than a week after giving birth to her fourth child (congrats, Dana!), and seems rather apologetic about having "neglected" the carnival. Now, that's a dedicated blogger!
Did you take my advice and watch "The Ultimate Resource" last night? It was simply outstanding, meeting and exceeding my rather high expectations. Visually, it was first-class — beautiful high-definition video comparable in quality to the better Discovery HD programming. The content was fascinating as well as uplifting.
My only minor criticism is that the last of the five segments — the story of Shanghai entrepreneurs and their computer game company — was the weakest. The China segment was merely interesting, while the preceding four segments were moving:
In Ghana, a poor fisherman and his wife wanted their daughter to get a good education, so they put her in a private school instead of the free government school. James Tooley explained that in this very poor region of Ghana, 75% of the schools are private and for-profit, and all of them outperform the government schools.
In Peru, remote mountain villagers celebrated when they finally get legal titles to land that their families have worked for generations. Hernando de Soto talked about how property rights and the rule of law can turn the world's four billion poor into eager and successful stakeholders in the capitalist system.
In Estonia, the former Soviet republic has become one of the economically freest countries on Earth, enabling the Estonia Piano Company to transform itself from an inefficient producer of mediocre pianos for the state into an efficient, successful producer of some of the world's highest-quality instruments.
In Bangladesh, a young woman got a small loan so she and her husband could buy a loom. This enabled them to make and sell high-quality saris, lifting themselves out of poverty. Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammed Yunus and his Grameen Bank have made millions of similar "microcredit" loans (averaging $70), always for an income-producing purpose that will lift a family out of poverty. The repayment rate is 99%.
The program is a joyous and heartwarming celebration of the human spirit and of the benefits of liberty. By all means, see it if you can. HDNet is showing it several more times in the next few days (see schedule). I'm sure it will eventually be available on DVD, but if you can see it on HDNet this week, I bet you'll be glad you did.
I finally got around to checking out this month's Second Amendment Carnival at Free Constitution, and I encourage you to drop by if you have even a passing interest in firearms-rights issues. I've barely sampled the many links, and I've seen some serious, high-quality, thought-provoking posts. Some pretty funny and fun stuff, too.
For instance, Acme Anvil Co. argued persuasively (and with tongue in cheek, I assume) that a Guiliani administration would buy you a gun if you can't afford one. More seriously, Politics, Guns & Beer (great name for a blog) compared carrying a gun to wearing a seat belt in a terrific treatise on firearms — and it's only Part 1. How does a 21-year-old coed from Idaho become so wise?
Beyond that, you'll find links to Rhymes With Right, The Smallest Minority, Say Uncle, LawDog, and more — a fine collection of posts that you really should check out.
If you're an advocate of free markets and a fan of the late Julian Simon and the late Milton Friedman, and you have an HDTV, it doesn't get any better than this: glorious high-definition images from exotic locales all over the world celebrating people's creativity as the ultimate resource and freedom as the key to enabling them to accomplish wonderful things.
Tuesday, April 24, at 10 PM Eastern, HDNet premieres a new documentary from Free To Choose Media entitled "The Ultimate Resource." It will repeat five more times between then and May 5 (see schedule), so you have time to buy that high-def TV you've been thinking about and order HD programming from your cable or satellite provider.
In short, they travel to China, Bangladesh, Estonia, Ghana, and Peru and show examples of how people (thank you Julian Simon) – when given the incentives and the tools – are proving they can apply their free choice, intelligence, imagination and spirit to dramatically advance their well-being and that of their families and communities. …
These stories of entrepreneurship and achievement among the world's poorest people illustrate the ideas of four outstanding thinkers featured in the program:
Muhammad Yunus, winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, founded the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which uses microfinance to bring opportunity to the world’s poorest people by helping them to start their own businesses.
Hernando de Soto, founder of The Institute for Liberty and Democracy in Peru, helps developing countries open their systems — creating strategies for legal reform that offer the majority of the world’s people a stake in the free market economy.
James Tooley, British professor of education policy, explores the widespread, dramatic impact of low budget private education– financed not by charities or wealthy supporters– but by the poor families themselves in India, China, Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana.
Johan Norberg, Swedish author and scholar, takes aim at both left-wing critics, who would condemn developing countries to poverty until they develop “First World” workplace standards, and Western governments, whose free market rhetoric is undercut by tariffs on textiles and agriculture, areas in which developing countries can actually compete.
In recent years, today's date has unfortunately been linked to the abominable murderous acts that took place near Waco, TX, in 1993 and in Oklahoma City in 1995. But the date also commemorates happier events. Some people celebrate it as Bicycle Day, the date in 1943 when Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann first deliberately ingested LSD and then went for a bike ride. (Hofmann, BTW, is 101 and still active.)
But most importantly, this is the date on which a ragtag, self-organized militia that called themselves the Minutemen prevented British troops from imposing gun control on the American colonists. The Second Amendment Foundation wants us to remember and celebrate that:
Thursday, April 19 marks the 232nd anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord that started the American Revolution with the "Shot Heard Round the World," and the Second Amendment Foundation notes that the aftermath of this week's events in Virginia clearly show that European animosity toward our right to keep and bear arms still exists.
In the wake of the horrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, noted SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb, European media – and particularly the BBC – has bared its visceral disdain toward America's Second Amendment and the traditions of liberty and independence it represents and protects.
"Clearly," Gottlieb said following three days of combative day and night interviews and debates primarily conducted by BBC reporters and commentators, "there remains to this day a horrible, condescending attitude toward armed American citizens. Haven't the British yet gotten over the fact that a ragtag, often disorganized force of American colonials, wielding their own arms, was able to defeat what at the time was the most powerful armed force in the world?
"Our forefathers," he continued, "armed with their own flintlock rifles and pistols, and an assortment of muskets – the ‘assault weapons' of their era – threw off the yoke of oppression under which they were forced to live. When British broadcasters today demand to know just what it is about gun ownership that Americans defend so vigorously, the answer is too simple for them to comprehend. Simply put, we defend this individual civil right because without our own guns two centuries ago, we would still likely be saluting a king instead of electing a president. We would likely be British subjects instead of electing our own Congress and state legislatures.
"We know our system isn't perfect," Gottlieb observed. "But America's freedom and liberty are second to none. Otherwise, people would be waiting in line to leave instead of sneaking across borders to get in. April 19, 1775 gave us that, and the Second Amendment protects it. And just so the BBC and other European media aren't misled, we're not giving it up."
Check out Dana's second Carnival of Principled Government over at Principled Discovery. This edition has somewhat of a Jeffersonian theme, but there's certainly plenty of variety there — theology, economics, jurisprudence, and more.
Don't miss Rick Sincere's review of speeches by libertarian authors Brian Doherty and Neal Boortz. I've got Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism in my pile of books to read, and after reading Sincere's post, I may have to move it up a few places. Also, check out Joe's plan for getting a master's degree while playing with his guns.
Happy Liberty Day! And James Madison's birthday! In honor of the occasion, Dana Hanley chose today for the inaugural Carnival of Principled Government. I intended to submit a post, but screwed up and missed the deadline. No matter — Dana was kind enough to include one of mine as an Editor's Choice. And there is no shortage of other intriguing links — I'll have to make some time later to check a number of them out. You should, too.
Bravo, Dana — this carnival is an astonishing first effort!
The chattering class nostrum that Free Iraq and its coalition allies have "lost the Iraq war" is so blatantly wrong it would be a source of laughter were human life and hope-inspiring liberty not at such terrible risk.
In terms of fundamental historical changes favoring 21st century freedom and peace, what Free Iraq and its Coalition allies have accomplished in four short years is nothing short of astonishing. …
The Iraqi people are earning their victory and their liberty. …
Read. The. Whole. Thing. Then go to his blog to read more thoughts about his Birmingham-Baghdad analogy. Marvelous!
Egyptian student and blogger Abdelkareem Suleiman was sentenced to four years in prison today. For writing things on his blog that were critical of the Egyptian government and fundamentalist Islam. Outrageous.
When I wrote about Kareem in November, I urged readers to sign a petition (click Help Free Kareem in right sidebar) and to call or write the Egyptian embassy/government. I echoed Tom Palmer and Jason Kuznicki on the need to keep it polite:
It’s enormously tempting to heap contempt upon a country that imprisons people for blogging while urging mercy for Saddam Hussein, a country that takes billions every year in U.S. aid and claims to be an ally, but does everything it can to undermine the spread of democracy and freedom. But Kuznicki and Palmer are right — be respectful and polite. You can curse them under your breath later.
Now that countless respectful and polite pleas, rallies around the world, and at least three petitions have all fallen on deaf ears, I’m inclined to be somewhat less respectful in expressing my displeasure to the Egyptian government. I’m not going to curse them openly — that would still be counterproductive. I think "polite contempt" is the tone I’ll aim for.
For embassy contact information, click the Palmer or Kuznicki link above. For links to other petitions, reports on rallies for Kareem, and other news and information, visit FreeKareem.org.
Interfaith Coalition Condemns Jailing of Egyptian Student over Blogposts, Calls on Egyptian President Mubarak to Pardon Abdelkareem Soliman
CAIRO – The “Free Kareem Coalition,” an interfaith group of human rights activists from around the world, condemned the sentencing of Egyptian student Abdelkareem Soliman for expressing his opinion on his personal blog.
A judge in Egypt today sentenced Kareem to four years in prison for the alleged crimes of “defaming the President of Egypt” and “insulting Islam.”
Dalia Ziada of the Cairo-based Arabic Network for Human Rights Information explained that Kareem’s conviction remains the first time an Egyptian blogger has been arrested for writing on his blog. “It sends a chilling message to bloggers of all persuasions in Egypt and across the Middle East. We are not free to express ourselves openly on our websites.”
Kareem criticized Egyptian authorities for failing to protect the rights of religious minorities and women, and expressed views about religious extremism in strong terms.
Bahraini blogger Esra’a Al-Shafei, who launched the website FreeKareem.org to coordinate the international solidarity campaign, noted the basic human rights violation. “I was offended by some of Kareem’s blog writings. But I cannot support his imprisonment merely because he said a few things that insult my identity. Freedom of expression and open exchange of ideas must be respected.”
In November, Kareem was detained after being interrogated by prosecutors. He was held for over two months without trial and has remained in solitary confinement without access to his lawyers.
Kareem’s conviction comes despite global rallies on Kareem’s behalf, including demonstrations outside Egyptian embassies in Washington, Rome, London, Paris, Stockholm, and New York. Over 2,000 people have sent letters to Egyptian authorities demanding Kareem’s release.
Opinion editorials in the Washington Post, International Herald Tribune, and Beirut Daily Star have all also called for Kareem’s release, along with a bi-partisan coalition of US Congressional leaders, European parliamentarians, and Costa Rican representatives.
“We call on the appeals courts in Egypt to listen to international condemnation and do the right thing,” stated organizer Mohammed Shouman. “Kareem’s right to free expression has been violated and his conviction should be overturned.”
In the meantime, activists fear Kareem’s life is in danger and hope for high-level intervention. “We hope President Hosni Mubarak will pardon Kareem and allow him to start a new life outside of Egypt,” noted Al-Shafei. “We won’t be silent until Kareem is safe.”
It’s a sad indicator of the sorry state of American politics in general and the U.S. Senate in particular that a British lord has to remind American senators that the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, and that attempts by senators to silence ExxonMobil, accompanied by thinly-veiled threats, violate their oath of office. Bravo, Lord Monckton!
The entire Monckton letter (link above is to PDF) is well worth reading. It begins (emphasis added):
The US Constitution guarantees the right of free speech. It is inappropriate for elected Senators such as yourselves to suggest that any person should refrain from exercising that right, as you have done in your letter of October 27 to the CEO of ExxonMobil. …
You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to “senior elected and appointed government officials” who disagree with your opinion. You are elected officials yourselves. If you do not believe in the right of persons within the United States to exercise their fundamental right under the world’s greatest Constitution to petition their elected representatives for the redress of their grievances, then you have no place on Capitol Hill. You must go.
Your letter says climate change is “a matter of urgency for all mankind”. It is not. The UN’s 2001 report estimates our greenhouse effect compared with 1750 AD as 2.43 watts per square metre. Its new report will cut that figure to 1.6 watts, little more than 1 per cent of the 150-watt natural greenhouse effect.
The UN will also reduce its high-end estimate of sea-level rise to 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. Morner (2004), a lifelong student of sea level changes, says: “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups. … our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” That is a maximum of 8 inches in 100 years. See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000).
All other imagined consequences of climatic warming are more likely to be beneficial than harmful. …
The seven-page letter, which includes references for the studies cited, goes on to provide an excellent, readable summary of the state of knowledge — and misinformation — about climate change, and to deliver a fine verbal thrashing to Senators Rockefeller and Snowe. It closes with (emphasis added):
Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.
I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call “disastrous” and “calamitous” consequences. Let me give just two examples from this side of the Atlantic:
The Institute for Public Policy Research, a Leftist pressure-group, has stated that public bodies should act henceforth as though there is no debate among scientists and should assume that “disastrous” and “calamitous” climate change will be a fact.
The British “Foreign Secretary”, one Beckett, responded to a recent newspaper article by me that questioned the science behind the soi-disant “consensus” on climate change by demanding – during an otherwise paralyzing speech on terrorism – that the news media should treat climate sceptics as though they were spokesmen for Islamic terrorism and should deny them column inches or air time. Al Gore, who was Vice-President when the Senate declared 97-0 that it would not ratify any treaty that did not bind fast-growing, heavily-polluting nations such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil because without them no action by the West would make any difference, wrote a reply to my article saying that I should not be discussing these matters in the Press. He said I should rely on peer-reviewed research in journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Research Letters. Within 12 hours, I had published a 24-page refutation of his scientifically-inaccurate article, citing more than 60 references in learned journals. Twenty-five of the citations were from the three journals he mentioned.
You will rightly deduce from Beckett’s sinister remark that after a decade of Socialist government freedom of speech does not figure in our constitution. But let me quote the First Amendment to yours:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I call upon the pair of you to live by those great words, or to leave. Yours truly,
MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
Outstanding. I wish we had some Moncktons in the United States Senate.
When I 