Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than fifty years there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time. [14]
Wrong: in fact no nation in history has ever gone through a cataclysmic change with demographic and not sustained a change. Moreover, Bill Clinton has rest assured the audience that America would be better off when we are all minorities and realize true “diversity or better Multiculture”. Perhaps someday during the golden years of those students will spend their lives living in a Third World America. Uncontrolled immigration threatens to deconstruct the Melting Pot which made this country the strongest nation the world has ever witnessed to a conglomerate America lack of history, heroes, language, culture, religion, and ancestors. In short the conglomerate of peoples have nothing in common with each other this fractionalization may eventually lead to endless wars; similar to what has happened in the Balkans.
Another aspect of weakening the Melting Pot concept is to allow other religions to have equal footing as that of Christianity. John Adams once wrote, “[If] we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people [of the Christian faith]. [For] it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other [religion].”[15] John Adams warned us if you have more than one dominant religion in a country then eventually that country will have conflict, for example: the never ending saga in Bosnia whereby the peoples of that society by virtue live within proximity of one another sharing basically the same customs from language to race (being Caucasian) with a few exceptions, but differ markedly with religion which led to ethnic cleansing during the 1990’s, and tension exist to this very day. Interestingly enough, Joseph Tito of Yugoslavia tried to pull together the peoples in the Balkans through the iron fist of communism (not controlled by the Soviets), but eventually failed after his death and with the collapse of the Soviet Empire. [16] Just as our first President George Washington warned if we did not share a common religion built on Judeo-Christianity we would suffer as a nation:
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. [17]
Washington sought the importance to have Unity of Government:
A. Unity being a "main pillar" of "real independence":
1. for the support of "tranquility at home"
2. for "your peace abroad"
3. for "your safety"
4. for "your prosperity"
5. for "that very liberty which you so highly prize."
B. Common attributes of unity:
1. same religion
2. manners
3. habits
4. political principles
The most commanding motive is to preserve the "union of the whole." The North, South, East, and West all depend on each other. Unity leads to greater strength, resources, and security. Unity will help "avoid the necessity of . . . overgrown military establishments" and will be the main "prop of your liberty." George Washington questions the patriotism of anyone who tries to "weaken its bands." Furthermore, at that time it was unity that brought two valuable treaties with Great Britain and the second with Spain. Washington understood this very well and he went further to say, for America not to be entangled in foreign affairs, for America will be bound by article VI from our constitution which then will supersede our laws. [18]
Culture is strongest for any society is when it is tied with religion, ideologies come and go, and their impact is marginal when compared to religion which has a much longer effect. Furthermore, ideology is something new when compared to religion impacting on societies. The founders understood this, and they knew that such things as the like manner, habits, and political principles could only be possible where there is unity of religion.
One could conclude that wherever Protestant Christianity had its most influence on a society is where that society enjoys the most freedom and economic growth. That is not to say that Catholic Christianity had the same influence. Sure Protestant Christianity had its share of faults with the genocide of the Native American Indians and the slavery of blacks. However, the abolition of slavery movement in America was kicked off in Protestant Christian churches. Great abolitionists like John Brown started the rebellion in 1859 against slavery. [19] America saw its faults and had a Civil War, which the blacks were free and later the civil rights marches in the 1960s and the 1970’s were also had its start in a church. In fact Dr. Martin Luther King started the whole civil rights movement in an Alabama church where he kicked it off with the famous “I have a dream speech”. Dr. King quoted parts of the Declaration of Independence with, “[the] promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed (‘that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain’ [20]) to the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. [21] Keeping in mind that both the Declaration of Independence and Dr. King’s speech meant men as a species and not as a gender. The freedom of blacks Americans did not come easy, but they have achieved significant stride since the inception of this great nation. Songs such as “Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me,” personifies a repentant sinner from a former slave owner and trader ship captain John Newton in 1779. This example is something that is not found in other religion except Christianity. As such, some of our churches have gone as far as to appease a “multiculture” community by changing the beautiful words of John Newton’s hymnal with this, “that saved and strengthened me,” or “that saved and set me free.” [22] Why, one might ask? It is to free oneself from the uncomfortable idea of knowing that he/she needs a savior in Jesus Christ, which is the center of Christianity. However, nothing of the same could be said of other religions and countries that are void of Protestant Christianity. “Whiter than snow, dear Lord, Wash me now…” from “Have Thine Own Way, Lord” [23] is now edited to something that has a lesser of a racial underpinnings, “Wash me just now, Lord, Wash me just now.” The indication of “Whiter than snow” was deemed to be racist. [24] “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”, has been changed “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” to make the stanza more gender neutral. Interestingly enough, was what Catholic evangelist Futlon J. Sheen predicted in the 1930’s has come to full fruition. “What we are producing,” claimed Sheen, is a one-world religion by amalgamating all religions into one, with a,
Group of sophomoric, latitudinarians who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a “mental projection”; who equate Christ and Buddha, Saint Paul and John Deweyl and then enlarge their broad-mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is just as good as another, but even that one world-religion is just as good as another.” [25]
Precisely this one world religion with a moral relativism is what Multiculturalism has to offer. If Multiculturalism has its way, Christianity as America knows it will be lost along with it is the uniqueness in distinction that separates it from all other religions in the world.
More to the point, the founders who wrote the Declaration of Independence paraphrased Saint Paul’s ministry in the 1st Century saying, “For there is not distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is over all” is rich to all who call upon Him. [26] Furthermore, there “is no partiality with God,” that we are all ‘sinners’ men and women. [27] Moreover in Protestant Christianity is where “women” are elevated to the level of “men”. We could examine an incident in whereby Jesus was confronted with a woman that was to be executed by stoning, because she had committed adultery. The Jewish men dragged her to Jesus and was about to execute her and Jesus replied by writing on the sand and not replying with a word, and when He was done He told them whoever is without Sin may cast the first stone and the men knowing their own failures left one by one starting with the old. [28] Other religions do not offer the same freedom to its citizens as that of Protestant Christianity. For example Canada with its most advanced Multicultural city of Toronto has trouble with the Sharia law of the Islamic faith. Islam is a rigid religion that does not observe equality for all and especially for women and minorities. Today Canadian women are being pulled apart with the decision of either adhering to their religion or abiding by the civic courts of Canada, which is much fairer, and balanced. Consider this story from a local paper describing the dilemma for Muslim women in Canada, “But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of Sharia are overwhelming. To reject Sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim.” With the growing number of Muslims to more than 600,000, native Canadian Muslims have stated that many of the new immigrants have brought with them a far stricter version of Islam. "A lot of money is being poured into North America from very traditional groups from Saudi Arabia and Libya," [29] they point out. Moreover, these newly arrived immigrants are not known for their tolerance of other versions of Islam nor would they be tolerant of Christianity and Judaism, or their progressive attitudes toward women. Of course it is for the Koran and the Hadith to specifically prescribe women to be subjected to something to the level of a farm animal at best, and if the women do not submit to the authority of men then “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Koran.” [30] Many of the women in Western Europe have the same negative feeling toward Islam with their strict and unfair rule for women, but after observing a few more verses we could have a better understanding as to why the women are afraid of rejecting their faith for fear of harsh punishment if left to Sharia law. Consider these two verses: “Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and all Muslim women to draw cloaks and veils all over their bodies (screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way). That will be better.” [31] So is it safe to say that Islamic women are covering themselves, because they want to feel a sense of modesty or are they afraid of the repercussions? “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.” [32] Again, there is no misinterpreting these few verses regarding women. Canada’s population is small and the Muslim movement and migration is growing at an alarming rate, Canada in future years could have a large problem when dealing with Islam and its teachings. Immigrant women are among the most vulnerable people in Canada. Many don't speak English, are poorly educated, and are isolated from the broader culture. They may live there for decades without learning the language, and stay utterly dependent on their families. They have no idea of their rights under Canadian law. This is all due to their strict austerity of adhering to the Sharia law. Not only is Canada having this rising problem of dealing with a different culture which is diametrically opposed to the Western philosophy, but Germany is having the same problem with the large body of Turkish migration. Turkish women are forced into marriage with Turkish men of whom they never met and the women are kept in a small enclave that is isolated from the surrounding towns, similar to that of Canada. These women never assimilate into the mainstream community and thus are forced to abide by the rigid Sharia law of Islam. [33]
As for other minorities such as blacks the same could be said when observing the Koran and Hadith, “Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African’s color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks.” [34] “Ham [Africans] begat all those who are black and curly-haired, while Japheth [Turks] begat all those who are full-faced with small eyes, and Shem [Arabs] begat everyone who is handsome of face with beautiful hair. Noah prayed that the hair of Ham’s descendants would not grow beyond their ears, and that whenever his descendants met Shem’s, the latter would enslave them.” [35] Notwithstanding, preaching from the multicultural community, there is the notion of no tolerance for other human races. Judeo-Protestant Christianity has offered something of a far better way of life for all that wants to participate into the Melting Pot Concept. Attitude of intolerance from Islam is the same toward other form of faiths.
The last point of keeping America strong with the Melting Pot concept is the need to understand the underpinnings of the American Republic, which was adopted by our founding fathers, who had a clear and profound vision for what they wanted our federal government to be. They formulated a republican government strong enough to protect and nurture the young nation but, at the same time, one limited in scope and size so that it could not squelch states’ prerogatives or stifle their citizens’ liberty. The overarching purpose was to prevent the concentration of power in a relative handful of institutions and individuals. They sought it fit to have checks and balances among the three branches of government. In fact, our founders researched the Old Testament in order to lay the foundation of the three branches of government. For, in the book of Isiah from the Old Testament, it says: For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King. [36] This of course resembles the Trinity which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They in fact, are all equal just like our three branches of government. The first stanza of the verse suggest the Judicial branch of government, whilst the second stanza suggest the Legislative branch of the government and finally the last stanza suggests the Executive branch. Moreover, the three branches of government takes their guidance from the Christian God, which could be seen here from one of our founders (Noah Webster) who admittedly stresses the necessity that “[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.” [37] The transcendent values of the Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic. Consider the stability this provides: in a republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. However, in a democracy, if a majority of the people decide that is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime. Most recently, Justice Bryer from the Supreme Court said he would seek international laws to help him decide on certain cases, while Justice Scalia and Rhenquist would seek our constitution to guide their decision and observe the constitution the way the founders and framers had envisaged it to be interpreted. These different judicial views are referred as Originalists or Constitutionalists vs. the worldview observer. An Originalist is one who interprets the constitution for what it is and the its true meaning to the law opposed to a world view observer who seeks international laws to govern their decision making. [38] America’s immutable principles of right and wrong were not based on the fickle manner of fluctuating feelings and emotions of the people but rather on what Montesqieu identified as the “principles that do not change.” [39] Benjamin Rush one of our early founders was endorsed by Montesqieu with this saying: “[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of the law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.” [40] In the American republic, the “principles which did not change” and which were “certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community” were the principles of the Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For instance in Blackstone’s Commentaries it explained:
To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine…. If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law…. But, with regard to matters that are… not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the…legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose. [41]
And precisely that, the founders echoed that theme by having,
All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human…. But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God…. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine [42]
China in the 19th Century to the early 20th Century tried to adopt our governing system. However, there was a slight problem, China does not observe Christianity, but instead is steeped in the Eastern philosophy of Confucianism and Buddhism. Both religions are in direct opposition to Christianity. To that end, China’s president Sun Yat-sen, who was educated in the West was a political revolutionary. He introduced the trias politca, in essence, the three branches of government we have here in the United States. Nonetheless, there was a slight problem, Sun Yat-sen became the president which meant that the three governing bodies fell under the leadership of the president. Later, the Chinese government added two more branches of government making the total to five. [43] They missed the point of having three branches of government as our founders sought:
[T]he law … dictated by God himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. [44]
Alexander Hamilton, signer of the Constitution understood this very well and was further accentuated by Rufus King, who is another one of our signers’ of the Constitution:
[T]he … law established by the Creator … extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind … [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control. [45]
All of the founders understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the republic and that the republic would be destroyed if the people’s knowledge of those values should ever be lost.
Interestingly, China’s government did not survive nor did the freedom of its people as the events of the 20th Century unfolded having China riddled with a World War and Civil War with which the Communists won. China now is in bondage from the communist yoke, because the fundamental belief was not centered on Christianity.
A republic is the highest form of government devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human care and maintenance. If neglected, it can deteriorate into a variety of lesser forms, including a democracy (a government conducted by popular feeling): anarchy (a system in which each person determines his own rules and standards): oligarchy (a government run by a small council or a group of elite individuals): or lastly, dictatorship (a government run by a single individual). John Adams summed it when he stated:
Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such as anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few. [46]
Understanding the foundation of the American republic is a vital key toward protecting it. Essentially, the governing body of America was founded under Christian principles as we have examined, but if Christianity has lost its appeal due to equalizing other religion or ideology to the same level, then it is safe to ask what other form of faith is there for the West? Perhaps T.S. Eliot could best summarize it, “As political philosophy derives its sanction from ethics, and ethics from the truth of [the Christian] religion, it is only by returning to the eternal source of truth that we can hope for any social organization which will not, to its ultimate destruction, ignore some essential aspect of reality.” [47] In order for America to be fully homogenous it must as a people observe what the originalists laid down as foundation for our form of government. Hence forth, the Melting Pot is one whereby all citizens maintain a collective thought maintained through assimilation.
If America is to stay strong and vibrant, America must first of all remain a country in which all people of the world who are welcome here assimilate into the American culture which is built on the Judeo-Christian faith. It is the truth, which holds the country together. We are increasingly facing many problems that our founding fathers warned us about especially the wickedness of the human heart; if left unchecked the heart will do everything it can possibly do to gain power. For instance, we could observe what has happened with the judicial branch from the three branches of our government. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom explained his rational for the ruling on the recent case of execution of minors (with John Lee Malvo and Simmons), boldly claiming, “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international public opinion against the juvenile death penalty.” [48] This justification was written by a man who regularly ignores the weight of American public opinion in forcing his postmodern ideology on our culture. Kennedy further promised that the Supreme Court of the United States would continue to look to “the laws of [selected] other countries and to international authorities” in reinterpreting the Constitution. [49] Justice Kennedy is not the only one who has stated such claims, others include, O’Connor, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens, who have recently made similar statements. In short this the very idea that John Adams has stated that if we are not careful we as a nation could have a tyrant, oligarchy or something else that is not the ruling body of a Republic in which this great nation was founded upon. Thomas Jefferson saw the importance of this in the 1803 when he repeatedly warned of an out of control judiciary that would destroy the Constitution in a landmark decision called Marbury vs. Madison. It allowed the Justices to rule on the constitutionality of every legal issue, both inside and outside the government, giving themselves unrivaled imperial power. The concept of “check and balances” that was intended to keep one branch from eclipsing the other two was no longer in force. Soon after, the Executive branch and Legislative branch and the will of the American people have been subservient to the rulings of five imperious justices, along with numerous lower court judges, who continue to issue their decrees beyond the reach of any authority. As in the recent ruling of the pulling of the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo in Florida. One lower court judge had more power than the President, both houses of Congress, and the governor of Florida to execute by starvation of an innocent woman. This type of incident is exactly what Jefferson warned us about (albeit he wrote this over a hundred years ago, but it still has relevancy), in fact, this vexed him so much that in 1819 he was still troubled by this that he wrote:
“The Constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression … that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” [50]
And that is not all in 1823 just three years before his death, he not only predicted the rise of an imperious court, but by then Jefferson observed it firsthand and he said with this, “At the establishment of our Constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous,….” [51]
Nonetheless, the beat goes on. As we speak, the Supreme Court is debating whether or not to permit the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public buildings and elsewhere on public property. Of course, the nine Justices sit every day in the Supreme Court Building that is adorned by three depictions of the Ten Commandments. [52] Our halls of government are positively brimming with references to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Furthermore, the Sergeant of Arms, who since 1777 have opened each session of the Supreme Court by shouting, “God save this Court and the United States of America.” [53] Both the Bible and the Sergeant of have to be silenced in the court house if the Multicultural community have it their way for they would not want to be offended. Indeed, if that ever occurs the entire nation would have to be transformed, it appears. And from there Christianity as we know it today in America will hang precariously in the balance.
What this displays with our modern culture is that we are not observing the Constitution as a document with original authenticity that which is immutable. Instead our desire is to view it as a “living and breathing document”. That very notion is dangerous to Americans, because if there is either a tyrant or an oligarchy in power, then they could interpret the laws to fit their agenda. If we are not diligent in defending the constitution, then we could hear the words of Cyril Connolly when he wrote some fifty years ago, “It is closing time in the gardens of the West.” [54]
In closing, America remains the most blessed nation on God’s great earth, the land of opportunity, possessed of a vitality and energy unlike those of any other nation in the world. Our science, technology, and medicine are on the cutting edge, which is the envy of the entire world. We are a people with more food so much that a good portion of Americans is overweight while most of the world is foraging for a single meal. Some of us are alive today because of the advent of miracle drugs and surgical procedures that otherwise we would have been dead residing in another country. We have much to be thankful for and we all owe this great nation a debt of gratitude. However, no one can ever deny the past social problems America instituted on its people, but it has made great gains in reconciling them. America is the country that was built on the Melting Pot concept, which has its foundation on the bedrock of truth through Protestant Christianity and it is worth fighting for and defending.
Brian P. Sturm
Dr. Steiner
Dynamic 670
23 May 05
Source Material
[1] New King James, Exodus 13:3
[2] Herodotus, The Persian Wars (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1972), P. 543.
[3] Walter Martin, The Kingdom of The Cults, (Betheny House Publishers, October, 2003)
[4] New King James, Mathew 5:14
[5] “Chinese - seeking solutions for big problems”, April 17, 2005. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/wchinref.htm
[6] “China's economy grows 9.5% in 2004”, China Daily, May 1, 2005.
[7] Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West, (Saint Martin Press, 2002), P.125.
[8] Bill Baskervill, “Eugenics Gone but Effects Linger.” (Associated Press, March 13, 2000)
[9] Samuel P. Huntington, “Reconsidering Immigration: Is Mexico a Special Case?” (Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, November 2000), p.5.
[10] Laura Parker, “U.S Hispanics’ Youth Assures More Growth,” USA Today, May 10, 2001, p.13.
[11] Samuel P. Huntington, “The Hispanic Challenge” (Foreign Policy, March/April 2004).
[12] ibid.
[13] www.germanembassy-india.org/news/98july/gn07.htm
“Otto Von Bismarck the Founder of the German Empire”, German News Magazine, June/July 1998.
[14] “Transcript of Clinton Remarks at Portland State Commencement,” U.S. Newswire, June 15, 1998.
[15] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), October 11, 1798, Vol. IX, p. 229.
[16]
[17] George Washington's Farewell Address
[18] , “The National Historical Landmark site”, Wednesday January 26, 2005.
[19] U.S. Constitution: Article VI
[20] The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies in Congress, July 4,1776
[21] The "I Have A Dream", Speech Martin Luther King, Aug. 28, 1963
[22] Patricia Rice, “Singing Out: Revisions Steal Poetry, Meaning from Hymns, Professor Says,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 21, 1997, p.31.
[23] “Debating Baptismal Language,” The Christian Century, September 27, 1995, p.880.
[24] Senator Robert Byrd, KKK, “Polytheism in Modern Garb,” Speech to Senate, July 22, 1992.
[25] Fulton J. Sheen. “A Plea for Intolerance,” 1931.
[26] Romans 10:12
[27] Romans 2:11
[28] John 8
[29] Margaret Wente, “Life under sharia, in Canada?”, Saturday, May 29, 2004
[30] Tabari IX:113 (Hadith)
[31] Koran 33:59
[32] Koran 4:15
[33] Necla Kelek & Sascha Lehnartz ,“Putting an end to the multicultural dream” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 18, 2005
[34] Tabari II:11
[35] Tabari II:21
[36] Isaih 33:22
[37] Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p.6.
[38] Mark R. Levin, Men in Black, (Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2005), p. 12-13.
[39] George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent (Boston:
Little, Brown & Co., 1859), Vol. V, p. 24. See Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws
(Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. I, p. 17-23, and ad passim.
[40] Benjamin Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p 454, to David Ramsay, April 1788.
[41] Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771),
Vol. I, pp. 42-43.
[42] James Wilson, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation.” The Works of the Honorable James
Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, p 103-105.
[43] Geert Hofstede & Gert Jan Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations software of the Mind, (McGraw-Hill,
two Penn plaza, NY, New York, 2005), p250-251.
[44] Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p.87, February 23, 1775, quoting William Blackstone,
Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p.41.
[45] Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor (New York: G.P.
Putnam’s Sons, 1900), Vol. VI, p. 276, to C. Gore on February 17, 1820.
[46] John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, editor (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977),
Vol. I, p. 83, from "An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, with the Author's Comment in 1807," written on
August 29, 1763, but first published by John Adams in 1807.
[47] T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968), p. 50.
[48] Jonah Goldberg, “Justice Kennedy’s Mind,” National Review, 9 March 2005.
[49] “Excerpts of Supreme Court Opinion,” Associated Press Online, 1 March 2005.
[50] www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html.
[51] Ibid.
[52] “ACLJ Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Constitutionality of Ten Commandments in Kentucky Case,”
Business Wire, 8 December 2004.
[53] The Monmouth courthouse in Freehold New Jersey during my divorce case of 12 May 2005.
[54] Kimball. http://www.newcriterion.com /archive/18/jun00/barzun.htm
