The Ten Principles do not look to government to bestow on us certain freedoms; instead, they define the extent to which each and every individual would agree to limit and modify their freedom by consenting to the Ten Principles, and thus the obligations that attach to those Principles.

An extract from The Ten Principles of Freedom: A Presentation of the Ten Principles to the Founding Fathers by Joseph BH McMillan.
Ch. 1: Laying the Foundations
Ch. 2: The Equal Freedom Principles; Principles 1 to 4
Ch. 3: Principle 5 and the Purpose of Life
Ch. 4: Principle 5 & the Equal Freedom Principles
Ch. 5: Principles 6 and 7, and the Source of Obligations
Ch. 6: More on Principle 7, and Principles 8 to 10
Ch. 7: Conclusion, and Some Observations 

* * * 

Joseph BH McMillan (JBH): Gentlemen, I now come to the final part of my presentation. What I propose to do is set out the Ten Principles in full (summarizing each set of five after listing them). Following that, I shall consider them in stages. First, I shall consider the most common criticisms of them. Secondly, I shall demonstrate how they are the basis of what we recognize as "morality." Thirdly, I shall briefly demonstrate their application to government. Fourthly, I shall apply them to some specific issues of current debate. And finally, I shall make some constitutional observations regarding the Ten Principles.

Here are the Ten Principles:

Principle 1. No one person, group of people, or institution howsoever constituted (including government), has any authority, natural or otherwise, to tell another person, without that person's consent, what to do.

Principle 2. No one person, group of people, or institution howsoever constituted (including government), has any authority, natural or otherwise, to compel another person, without that person's consent, to serve or obey anything created, written or designed by another person, group of people or institution (including government).

Principle 3. No one person, group of people, or institution howsoever constituted (including government), has any authority, natural or otherwise, to compel any other person, without that person's consent, to enter into any obligation. But I must honor all obligations I do enter into as long as those I enter into an obligation with do the same.

Principle 4. No one person, group of people, or institution howsoever constituted (including government), has any authority, natural or otherwise, to compel another person, without that person's consent, to labor for any other person, group of people, or institution (including government), or to compel any person to surrender all or part of their labor, income or property to any other person, group of people, or institution (including government).

Principle 5. The only discernible purpose of human life being the perpetuation of human life itself, and the union of a man and a woman to create new life being the only means by which human life has been and is perpetuated, every human being is free to seek to enter into that union which fulfils the purpose of human life, subject to the obligations attaching to the creation of new life. By creating new life, a man and a woman freely enter into the most important and fundamental human obligations: first being the obligations each has to that new life; second being their collective obligations towards that new life; third, their obligations towards each other which benefit that new life; and finally, their obligations towards each other. This union being the only means of fulfilling the only discernible purpose of life, and being the foundation of all human obligations, must never be threatened, undermined, diminished or otherwise interfered with by any person, group of people, or institution howsoever constituted (including government). This is the sanctity of the family.

These first five Principles can be summarized as follows:

1. No other human being can tell me what to do, without my consent.

2. No other human being can compel me to serve what he has created, without my consent.

3. No other human being can compel me to enter into any obligation, without my consent.

4. No other human being can compel me to work for him, or take my income or property, without my consent.

5. The family, the union of a man and a woman to create new life, being the only discernible purpose of life, and the only means of perpetuating human life, is sacrosanct.

Principle 6. In order to preserve my freedom I must not use, or threaten to use, physical violence towards another, and likewise, no one must use or threaten to use physical violence against me. If physical violence is used or threatened against me I am free to defend my freedom, and in doing so am free to assume the worst intentions of those attacking my freedom.

Principle 7. In order to preserve my freedom I must not interfere with, or threaten to interfere with, the obligations others have towards their families; nor cause, or be party to, a betrayal, sexual or otherwise, of my own family obligations or the family obligations of any other person. If my family is interfered with or threatened, by betrayal of obligations or otherwise, I am free to defend it, and in doing so am free to assume the worst intentions of those attacking it.

Principle 8. In order to preserve my freedom I must not interfere with, or threaten to interfere with, any other person's property, and likewise, no one must interfere with, or threaten to interfere with, my property. If my property is interfered with or threatened, I am free to defend it, and in doing so am free to assume the worst intentions of those attacking it.

Principle 9. In order to preserve my freedom I must not make false accusations against others, or deceive others, or make false statements, whether to gain financial advantage, avoid obligations, or for whatever other reason, and likewise, no one must do so against me.

Principle 10. I must not use my freedom for the sole or predominant purpose of interfering with the freedom of others for whatever reason, or exercise my freedom without regard as to the effect my actions may have on the freedom of others. Likewise, others must not exercise their freedom with the sole or predominant purpose of interfering with my freedom for whatever reason, or exercise their freedom without regard to the effect it may have on my freedom.

These second five principles can be summarized like this:

1. Do not use or threaten violence.

2. Do not cause or be party to a betrayal, sexual or otherwise, of your own or any other person's family obligations.

3. Do not interfere with the property of others.

4. Don't be dishonest.

5. Do not use your freedom to interfere with the freedom of others.

Now, the important point in respect of the Ten Principles of Freedom is that they be taken as one. They are one unit and indivisible. We consent to all the Principles, not a selection of those we think will best serve our purposes. So we cannot use one Principle as a shield against the consequences of a breach of another Principle.

Criticisms of the Ten Principles

The main criticism of the Ten Principles is that they do not go far enough; that they do not provide for the exercise of "compassion." What this really means is that they do not cater to what some people will claim are the "common good," "social justice," "tolerance," and "social equality."

That criticism comes primarily from those who fail to recognize that compassion has its origin in the compassion we exercise towards the life we create. It is primarily a criticism from those who despise the very notion of family.

It also rests on a delusion. It seeks to claim that one person’s "conscience," or the collective "conscience" of some group of people, automatically vests in them some authority to compel others to exercise the degree of "compassion" such people determine is necessary to relieve their own "consciences."

If someone claims that his "conscience" calls for the amelioration of what he perceives as some "injustice" or "suffering," he places an obligation on himself to relieve his conscience; it doesn’t give him an authority to compel others to exercise "compassion" on his behalf.

Further, addressing our consciences is a matter for each individual; it is how we build character. Government has no business dictating to the People how to develop their individual characters. It is a matter for each individual’s conscience, not something amenable to collective compulsion.

Another criticism comes from those who simply boldly assert that they would never agree to such Principles, without advancing any rational reasons for their objections. Essentially, such objection, better described as stubbornness, comes from those who think that their particular predilections are not catered for in the Principles. They think they deserve some "special treatment," and that not to award them that "special treatment" is somehow "intolerant." These people seek to use "tolerance" as a weapon to destroy our values. They fail to understand that tolerance is simply a measure of a permissible deviation from a norm – our values (in this case, the Ten Principles). So when the structure is unable to tolerate the extent of deviation they demand, they want to smash up the supports, and reduce the structure to rubble. Better rubble that can tolerate everything, they think, than a wholesome and sound structure with a limited and finite tolerance.

Then there are those who, quite remarkably in the modern world, still hold to the belief that they do possess some "natural" authority over other human beings. Such people object most strongly to the Equal Freedom Principles. However, such people never "believe" that they are the people who should be subjected to the authority of another, only that they themselves uniquely possess some such authority. Such people put themselves at war with free people, and thus outside the protection of the Ten Principles. Anyone claiming an authority to compel others to submit to his or her authority leaves those others free to resist.

In short, the only real objections to the Ten Principles comes from those who believe that their "superior intellects," or more refined "consciences," should vest in them some sort of authority to compel others to submit to their "superior intellects," or adopt their "consciences." Otherwise, any "authority" to impose on any person anything more than these Ten Principles can come only from Force of Arms, or Force of Numbers. And that is authoritarianism, not freedom.

George Washington (GW): But, by identifying those who would object to the Ten Principles, are you not acknowledging that those Principles would NOT attract universal consent, rather than the reverse?

JBH: Certainly not! The fact that there are people out there who will murder others does not mean that we should scrap the crime of murder. There will always be people out there who want to subject other people to their authority. And there will also always be people out there who will resist that imposition of authority, and fight for their freedom. What these Principles do is define the line that cannot be crossed. Those who oppose these Principles, oppose freedom. That puts them at war with free people. In that case, as against those people, we revert to our position of absolute freedom. Since they consider themselves "free" to attempt to impose their authority on us, we are free to resist, and compel them to recognize our freedom as defined by the Ten Principles of Freedom.

Freedom will always be at war with those who seek to subvert it to their own authority and advantage. So, even those who claim that they would never agree to the Ten Principles, will still be subjected to them. Principle 6 provides for defending ourselves. That provision is not subject to the obligations we assume under the Ten Principles, it is reserving our absolute freedom in respect of those who seek to subvert it. So those who do not consent to these Principles are still subject to the absolute freedom we retain in respect of such people. The freedom we reserve to defend our freedom is not subject to consent. It is simply an assertion of our natural state.

In short, the Ten Principles set the framework for the obligations we would consent to recognize on a reciprocal basis, while reserving our absolute freedom in respect of those who refuse to recognize those obligations. So those who refuse to consent to the obligations which attach to the Ten Principles, necessarily "consent" to free people asserting their absolute freedom to deal with such people on that basis. That is, we have no obligations in respect of them – but we retain an obligation to protect ourselves, our families, and those who respect their obligations under the Ten Principles, against any attempt to impose authority upon us without our consent.

I trust that clarifies the position, Mr Washington.

GW: It does!

JBH: Let me then briefly address the question of "morality."

The Ten Principles and Morality

When we examine the Ten Principles carefully, we see that "morality" amounts to nothing more than honoring the obligations which emerge from the Principles.

Thus, "morality" is not derived from Kant’s “moral faculty” of the Pure Impractical Reason; neither is it to be found in one of Locke’s “ideas” of Human Understanding; neither is it what Bentham called “the emptiness of all those rhapsodies of commonplace morality, which consist in the taking of such names as lust, cruelty, and avarice, and branding them with marks of reprobation.”

"Morality" is honoring the obligations which arise out of the creation of life, something each and every human being is the beneficiary of; and "immorality" is neglecting those obligations.

So we see that fidelity, abstinence, avoiding temptation, being honest, refraining from violence, sacrifice, and everything else we recognize as "morality," are not some theoretical propositions; they did not fall from the sky, they emerge from the natural fact that in order to perpetuate human life on earth, a man and a woman must join together in a union to create new life. And it is that joint enterprise which attaches to human beings those obligations which, if honored, demonstrate "morality;" and if dishonored, demonstrate "immorality."

Application of the Ten Principles to Government

Let me now turn to government.

The general principle is this: The People would only ever consent to government having an authority to protect them from those who seek to undermine their freedom as defined by the Ten Principles, and to ensure that everyone honors the obligations that attach to them by agreeing to the Ten Principles. Further, the People would only agree to assume an obligation to surrender part of their income and property in order to enable government to exercise that very limited authority which the People would consent to award it. Nothing more!

So what does that mean in practice?

First, that we have a strong police force, because if the police are unable to protect the People from those who betray their obligations, the People are free to reassume that role. Further, the judicial system must retain the confidence of the People by ensuring that victims are satisfied that "justice" has been done in punishing and deterring those who betray their obligations. But, the People can only be called on to "finance" the incarceration of criminals once the criminals’ resources have been exhausted – that is, prisons must be financed by taking the resources from the criminals themselves, before calling on the People.

Secondly, government must maintain a military that is sufficiently proficient to deter aggression, and also, in the event that deterrence does not work, to defend the People at minimal cost of life to the People. No person can be "sacrificed" in order to claim some justification for resorting to armed conflict. Neither can government sacrifice individuals in order to satisfy some "international" dictate of "proportionality" or "reasonableness."

Thirdly, the sole duty of elected and appointed officials would be to uphold the Ten Principles of Freedom. That would sweep away partisanship. But elected officials (and those they directly appoint – with the exception of law enforcement and the military) cannot be paid from public funds. That would breach Principles 3 and 4 because some people would end up assuming an obligation to pay for some official they never voted for, and may detest. If an elected official is unable to finance his office himself, he would have to secure sufficient funds from those who vote for him or her to finance the appointment – just as now such people secure "funds" to finance their "campaigns."

Fourthly, although elected officials would have the sole responsibility of upholding the Ten Principles, they would be free (as long as it does not interfere with their sole responsibility) to promote other causes that move their "consciences," but again, not at public expense. Therefore, they would be free, for example, to promote health care for those who find it difficult to secure insurance, or have insufficient funds, but they would have to raise the funds for such a venture from voluntary contributions. This is another reason why they could not be paid, because those who vote against them may not agree with any program they intend to promote while in office.

Fifthly, no branch of government could promote public education, except as provided above. No one person can be compelled to undertake the obligations another has towards his or her children. The obligation to educate the new life we bring into the world rests entirely with those who bring that life into the world. Now, there will be those who bring a human being into the world, but are incapable, or disinclined, to meet their obligations towards that life. But that does not automatically give some person the authority to compel others to assume the obligations that such a person cannot, or will not, assume towards the life they create. Yet, as I have said, those who find their consciences are moved to ameliorate the hardship that certain parents are willing to visit upon the lives they themselves create, are free do exercise whatever compassion they deem appropriate, and to seek contributions from like-minded people to do the same. They just don’t have any authority to compel some people to assume the obligations of others.

Sixthly, the Ten Principles would also obviously prohibit such practices as Foreign Aid, or financing the United Nations, and other International bodies. But again, those who believe that such acts of generosity are "worthy causes" are free to make such contributions if they are so inclined. They just cannot compel others to do so.

Now, I can hear the crowds scream: "You cold hearted beast! Do you have no compassion?" Yes, I do, but I don’t think my idea of compassion gives me some authority to compel others to share it, or pay for it. It is a matter between me and my conscience.

Anyway, I could go on ad infinitum with the practical effects of the Ten Principles. These examples are just a sampling.

So let me deal next with some of the specific issues of current debate, and how the Ten Principles would operate in respect of them.

Specific practical applications

Immigration: Since the Ten Principles would be the foundation of the Constitution, government would have an obligation to ensure that the Principles are observed, and that they are not undermined. That would impose an obligation on government to ensure that anyone gaining residency or citizenship understands what those Principles are, and agrees to abide by them. Secondly, government must ensure that it does not breach any of the Principles, particularly by imposing any obligations on the People to finance new arrivals (e.g. by having to pay for education, medical care etc). That means that government would have an obligation to ensure that new arrivals are financially self-supporting. So things like the Green Card Lottery would be ruled out (unless those entering the Lottery satisfy those requirements). It would also rule out refugees for the same reason, unless those claiming asylum could satisfy those requirements. Any "compassion" exercised in favor of refugees would have to be private, and those exercising that "compassion" would have to be personally liable to pay for it, and face the consequences of those refugees not being what they purport to be (although even here government would have to be satisfied that those granted refugee status still understand and uphold the Ten Principles).

Identity Cards: Since government would have an obligation to ensure that everyone within the country abides by the Ten Principles, it would also have an obligation to ensure that those within the country are there legally. As long as it does so in a way that does not breach any of the Ten Principles in respect of citizens (and those legally in the country), government would have to determine the best way to do that. No one would be "free" to use their freedom as defined by the Ten Principles to frustrate government meeting such an obligation unless, as I have said, government breaches its authority and obligations under the Ten Principles. In that sense, government would certainly have an obligation to know who is in the country, and would have to institute a system to determine that. I do not know the intricacies of any proposed identity cards, but as long as their purpose (and the information stored on them) was solely for identification, I can’t see which of the Ten Principles would be breached by introducing such a system.

The Fence: The government would have an obligation under the authority the People award it by virtue of the Ten Principles to ensure that only those eligible for residency enter the country. So, if it can be shown (and I think the evidence is incontrovertible in this respect) that people are entering illegally over an unprotected border, government would have an obligation, and an authority, to put a stop to it. Now, people may genuinely disagree as to whether a fence along the border is the right way to meet that obligation. So the answer is really simple. Those who believe that a fence is essential need to gather sufficient funds and support to build a fence. Those opposed to a fence cannot use their freedom for the sole or predominant purpose of frustrating what other people believe is necessary to preserve their freedom under the Ten Principles, or assert that their consciences compel them to oppose such a structure.

Global Warming: The same applies here. Even if every single individual agreed that this phenomenon was taking place, yet disagree on the reasons for it, government cannot impose obligations on those who disagree with the "evidence" in order to satisfy those who believe the "evidence." Now, according to the Global Warming Lobby, some 40 to 60% of people believe that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon. In that case, if all those who believe that "evidence" simply ceased to avail themselves of those "conveniences" which they claim cause the problem, the problem would be immediately reduced by half. Of course, that would have a dramatic effect on the motor industry, the airline industry, and the energy industry. But, no doubt, the free-enterprise system would quickly compensate by increasing production of bicycles, candles and the like. But, I suspect, such people are not that convinced of their "evidence." If they are, the solution lies in their hands – and it would not breach the Ten Principles.

I hope my brevity in dealing with these issues does not cloud the debate, but I think everyone can make their own determination of how the Ten Principles would operate in such circumstances.

General Constitutional Observations

So how would the Ten Principles differ from what we have already?

Under the current Constitutional arrangement, government can effectively do as it pleases, subject to certain procedural "safeguards" (the separation of Powers, the Electoral College system, two senators per state irrespective of population, et cetera), so long as it does not trample on any of those "rights" set out in the Bill of Rights. In other words, government determines what freedoms we can have, and what obligations will attach to us, subject to rudimentary procedural safeguards, and a nebulous mish-mash of "rights."

In contrast, The Ten Principles do not look to government to bestow on us certain freedoms; instead, they define the extent to which each and every individual would agree to limit and modify their freedom by consenting to the Ten Principles, and thus the obligations that attach to those Principles. The People would then consent to award government an extremely limited authority to protect and uphold that freedom, and the obligations which go with it. There is a world of difference between these two concepts of government: under the first, government decides; under the second, the People decide.

Under the first arrangement, our "rights" are supposed to act as "brakes" against government interference with our freedom – freedom to get on with our lives, freedom from being taxed at the whim of government, freedom from being compelled to assume the obligations of others, and so on. But they have been a dismal failure.

Hence we find the "right to life" of the most vulnerable of the human species being sacrificed on the altar of pure carnal pleasure; we find our "right of freedom of speech" being whittled down as "hate crimes" grow in popularity; we find our "right to freedom of religion" being construed as a prohibition against the public practice of religion (unless it is Islam); and we find, in places like Europe (and which will eventually take hold in the United States), a "right to education" being defined as a parental duty to submit their children to state indoctrination irrespective of how repulsive they find that indoctrination.

Government in the United States also disingenuously distinguishes between "rights" and "entitlements." The former, the People have been convinced, drop out of the sky, and are thus "natural," or bestowed upon us by our Creator, while the latter are imposed on us by government because a sufficient "majority" want them. In most other countries, especially European countries, this artificial distinction is quickly disappearing. There they recognize that giving some people a "right" to the property and labor of another (especially if they can portray those who must pay as "rich"), is an electoral winner. It is "social justice!"

And if the likes of the High Priestess of Liberal Fundamentalism secures power at the next election, we should be under no illusion that a hearty dose of "social justice" will be dropping through all our mailboxes shortly thereafter.

I shall not elaborate further on how our "rights" are usurping our freedom. Even a few minutes' reflection on the unborn child’s "right to life" should scream out at the discerning as to just how hopeless these silly things we call "rights" really are. They are simply no match for The Ten Principles of Freedom. And for those who claim that our "rights" are found in the Scriptures, I challenge them to find the "right to choose" in the Scriptures, or the "right to life," or any other "right" for that matter.

What the Scriptures say about "life" is this. If man eats of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil,” he shall “surely die,” and as we all know, that is exactly what man did. It should be noted however, that God also planted a “tree of life” in the garden, and man was not prohibited from eating of that tree. But once man had eaten of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil,” God chastised him, saying, “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” [Genesis 3:19]. And when man was kicked out of the garden, it was to prevent him from eating of the “tree of life.” And God placed Cherubims and “a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life” [Genesis 3:24]. So rather than a “right to life,” it seems God condemned man to an endless cycle of toil, and then death – not life. Any "right" man had to eat of the “tree of life” was lost when he ate of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” And Christ said, “he that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” [Matthew 10:39]. No “right to life” there either!

Yet, just as the first few chapters of the Scriptures tell us why we lost any "right to life" we may have had, so the last chapter of the Scriptures tells us how we can regain it: “Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” [Revelations 22:14].

Christ, too, made His stand unequivocally on the "law." “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” [Mathew 5:16-17, and see Luke 16:17]. And “the law” is the Ten Commandments: “These words [the Ten Commandments] the Lord spake …: and He added no more. And He wrote them in two tables of stone” [Deuteronomy 5:22]. “Not everyone that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” [Matthew 7:21].

And what is the “will of [the] Father?” It is the perpetuation of the image God created of Himself on earth, and perfecting that image by honoring the obligations God offers us – the Ten Commandments. And because man was disinclined to sacrifice his vanity and pleasure in order to start honoring those obligations, God even gave us a "head start" by sacrificing His only begotten son to wash away our sins. We could start fulfilling “the law” with a clean slate. Yet, only when we do honor the obligations He invites us freely to adopt will “[His] kingdom come.” And only then, according to the Scriptures, will “[His] will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” [Matthew 6:10]. The Scriptures are all about obligations, not "rights."

As I have already mentioned, the Ten Principles of Freedom are thus the "secular" counterpart of the Ten Commandments. Adopting them would sweep away the dangerous distinction between "secular values" and Scriptural values, while at the same time ensuring the freedom of "non-believers," but not frustrating the efforts of the "faithful" to seek life, and do the “will” of God.

Now just as these things we call "rights" cannot be found in the Scriptures, neither can they be found in "nature," especially not the "right to life." The default setting in nature, and the universe, is death, not life. Life is only sustained on earth through an endless cycle of death – the trick is to be the one doing the killing, and not the one being killed. If there is in fact no God, then life is nothing but an accidental aberration; a fleeting departure from nothing. From nothing it came, and to nothing it shall return. Death is certain. Void is certain. Nothing is certain. Life is not. It is a statistic; and an optimistic statistic at that. And no amount of pontificating, philosophizing, pitying our destiny, will change that fact. The best we can hope for is that there is, in fact, a Creator. Yet even then, we can only have "faith" about that; no one "knows" that, and indeed the Scriptures themselves tells us that: “I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. …All go unto one place; all are of dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” [Ecclesiastes 3:18, 20 & 21]

Now finally, I should say something about those abused concepts of "justice" and "tolerance" so beloved by those who lack any rational arguments for their position.

Since the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary would have only the very limited authority to uphold and implement the Ten Principles of Freedom, any law passed by Congress must fall within the Ten Principles, and can never exceed them. Any law which seeks to impose obligations which are not consistent with the Ten Principles would thus be null and void. The People would have no obligation to obey such a law. That disposes of centuries of jurisprudential wrangling about "just laws," the "duty" to obey laws, and other such jurisprudential nonsense. A just law would be a law that falls within the Ten Principles to which the People have consented, and the People would only have an obligation to obey such laws – none other.

Likewise, the Courts would have the sole duty of ensuring that government does not interfere in any way whatsoever with the Ten Principles. It would also be the arbiter of disputes based on the obligations which attach to the Ten Principles. Thus "justice" would finally acquire some meaning. Justice would be limited to compelling people to observe the obligations they freely consent to adopt by way of the Ten Principles of Freedom, and preventing anyone interfering with those obligations.

Tolerance could also finally be measured. Since, as I have said, tolerance is nothing more than the measure of a permissible deviation from a norm, the norm would be the Ten Principles, and the obligations which emerge from them. So anything which exceeded or undermined the Ten Principles could not be tolerated, irrespective of whether that "deviation" derived from some religion, a "lifestyle choice," a custom, or anything else.

So we can now see, Gentlemen, that anything more than these Ten Principles is a direct attack on our freedom. Anything less, undermines our freedom.

Justice is implementing the Ten Principles of Freedom.

Government thus becomes government of the People, by the People, for the People; not government by mob-rule, or worse, mob-rule of the misfits.

But Gentlemen, I fear that the window of opportunity to reclaim our freedom is growing ever smaller. If we neglect to act now, I expect that our freedom will be ever more curtailed, and we will soon find ourselves lamenting, like the Scottish philosopher Tobias Smollett: “I think for my part, half the nation is mad – the other not very sound.”

If we fail to assert our freedom, we must be mad, or at best, not very sound. Because once lost, Freedom will be impossible to regain. But yet, like the children of Israel camped at Mount Sinai, we are free to make that choice [Exodus 19:5].