A Letter: Freedom American Style

A Letter: Freedom American Style

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 1989 to the editor of The Franklin Times.]

    I hope that the amendments cited in Miss Simmons’ article, “Freedom, Our Most Precious Heritage,” was a misprint by the newspaper, and not in her original paper. The correct so-called “civil rights” amendments are the 13th, 14th, and 15th, which were adopted during Reconstruction. The latter two are hardly amendments to cite as expanding freedom considering that they were adopted at the point of bayonets. Such an adoption process is certainly not the substance of civil rights. Also, the legality of the 14th Amendment is highly questionable. The 15th Amendment expanded the franchise to Blacks, not the 24th, which eliminated the payment of taxes as a qualification for voting. [Contrariwise, the payment of a minimum direct tax should be a qualification for voting to assure that the voter is invested in the government.]
    Miss Simmons is correct in claiming that freedom is our most important heritage. However, she makes the common mistake of confusing freedom with voting. After all, the people in the Soviet Union voted. Only a true socialist would claim that they were free. Even the United States show that voting is no guarantor of freedom. The history of voting in the United States shows just the opposite. Freedom has declined as more people have been allowed to vote.
    If anyone doubts that freedom has been lost as more people have been given the vote, let him try to do the following:
    –    teach his children at home without doing it the way that the government approves,
    –    not support government institutions (public schools) that indoctrinate children with an ideology with which he disagrees,
    –    keep children without governmental approval,
    –    will his estate to his child if he never marries a person of a different race,
    –    divide his land among his children as he desires,
    –    use his land contrary to some governmental land use scheme (which has the effect of taking property without compensation),
    –    establish a scholarship fund for White Protestant males,
    –    buy a pistol without the government’s permission,
    –    carry a pistol in his pocket without governmental permission,
    –    put a mobile home on a lot in most towns,
    –    transport large sums of money out of the country without reporting it to the government,
    –    keep his financial affairs private,
    –    apportion representation in a State legislature on some basis other than representation of districts of equal population,
    –    make a living as a barber or doctor without the blessing of a government license,
    –    agree to work for someone for less than a governmentally fixed minimum wage,
    –    operate a business without one or more governmental licenses and permits,
    –    plant and sell more tobacco or wheat than some government bureaucrat allots,
    –    spend the 50 percent, which is five times more than God asks, of his income that the government taxes in the way that he thinks it should be spent.
And the list goes on ad infinitum. [This list was compiled in 1989. Today, the situation is even worse. For example, refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding” or having fewer rights than a common criminal when flying on a commercial airliner.]
    Our pre-civil rights amendment ancestors, with the obvious exception of slaves, enjoyed these and many more freedoms that we no longer have. As the history of the United States so adequately demonstrates, voting does not guarantee freedom. It does, however, show that after the privilege of voting extends beyond a certain point, it is extended at the cost of freedom. Freedom is no more secure in a democracy than it is in an autocracy or oligarchy.
    Freedom without the right to vote is infinitely preferable to the right to vote without freedom. Freedom is our most precious heritage, as Miss Simmons states, not voting.

Copyright © 1989, 2021 by Thomas C. Allen.

More political articles.

Three Schools of Thought on Salvation

Three Schools of Thought on Salvation

Thomas Allen

The three primary schools of salvation are predestination, unconditional salvation, and conditional salvation.

Adherents of the predestination school believe that God decided whom He would save and whom He would condemn before creation. Faith in Jesus, good works, repentance, baptism, etc. are irrelevant. Adherents of this school tend to place heavy stress on good works to prove to themselves and others that they are among the saved. Nevertheless, they do not know if they are saved until after they die.

Proponents of the unconditional salvation school claim that salvation depends solely on faith (or trust) in Jesus for salvation unto everlasting life. As for salvation, works are irrelevant. Works merely determine a person’s status or rank in the age to come. According to this school, a person is guaranteed salvation that cannot be lost — no matter what the believer does after believing in Jesus. Therefore, salvation is assured.

Proponents of conditional salvation believe that salvation unto eternal life depends on more than belief in Jesus. It also depends on works. To be saved unto everlasting life, a person must not only believe in Jesus, he must continue to believe in him until the moment he dies. Moreover, to be saved, a person must constantly live in obedience to the commandments of God. Only by continuously believing  and obeying the Gospel until death can one receive everlasting life. Thus, adherents of this school stress doing good works to assure their salvation. However, according to this school, a person does not know if he is saved until after he dies. Salvation is assured but not guaranteed.

To support their claim, adherents of the unconditional cite the following verses among others:

– John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life."

– John 3:18: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

– John 6:47: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

– John 10:28: "and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."

Unconditional salvation adherents read these verses literally. According to these verses, salvation depends solely on belief in Jesus. Once a person believes in Jesus, he is guaranteed everlasting life in the age to come. That is, he cannot lose his salvation.

However, proponents of conditional salvation do not read these verses literally. They add conditions to them. Thus, for example, they read John 6:47 as “he that believes on me [Jesus] has eternal life if he continuously obeys God and continuously believes in Jesus, that is if he preservers in his faith in Jesus and his obedience to the commandments of God until the moment that he dies.”

Likewise, predestinationists do not read these verses literally. They read John 6:47 as “he that believes on me [Jesus] has eternal life if God has predestined him to eternal life.”

Some of the verses that adherents of the conditional salvation school cite to support their doctrine are:

– John 15:10: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love." 

– John 15:6: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers."

– John 15:14: "You are my friends if you do what I command you." 

– Hebrews 3:14: "We share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end." 

– Colossians 1:23: "He has now reconciled . . . , provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the Gospel which you heard."

Conditional salvation proponents read these verses as requiring continuous obedience to the commandments of Jesus and God as necessary for salvation. However, unconditional salvation proponents read them as concerning a person’s status or rank in the age to come.

A major difference between the unconditional salvation school and the conditional salvation school is that the unconditional salvation school preaches salvation by faith alone, i.e., salvation by faith without works. On the other hand, the conditional salvation school preaches salvation by faith plus works, i.e., faith alone does not save a person. Consequently, the unconditional salvation school guarantees salvation, and, therefore, salvation is assured. The conditional salvation school assures salvation but does not guarantee it because no one knows if his faith and obedience will preserve until he dies or that his faith and obedience are sufficient to earn everlasting life.

To summarize, according to the predestination school, salvation depends solely on God’s arbitrary choice and has nothing to do with faith in Jesus or obedience to the commandments of God. According to the unconditional salvation school, salvation depends solely on faith in Jesus. According to the conditional salvation school, salvation depends on faith in Jesus and obedience to the commandments of God; moreover, a person’s faith and obedience must be continuous until he dies.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Bob Dole: Presidential Candidate

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1996 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. It compares Bob Dole with Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential campaign.]

It looks like Bob Dole is going out of his way to give the election to Bill Clinton, which is probably good for America. Dole as the Republican candidate is the best thing that Clinton has going for him in his reelection bid.

In the character department, Dole wins without a contest. (But then to find someone who could lose to Clinton in the character department would be difficult.) Unfortunately for Dole, character does not seem to carry much weight in American politics. As for policies, little distinguishes Dole from Clinton.

On issues, such as abortion, homosexuals, and immigration, to name a few, where Dole could gain support by distinguishing himself from Clinton, he fails to do so. Instead of comforting the social conservatives, who are the core of Pat Buchanan’s support and a large part of the Republican Party, Dole is ignoring, teasing, confusing, and antagonizing them. He is working hard to lose their support. Still, he is correct in that these people are unlikely to vote for Clinton. However, if he does not court their support, many will support a third-party candidate or stay home. Historically, Dole has been closer to Clinton on most issues than he has been to Buchanan.

During the campaign, Buchanan forced Dole to take a strong pro-life stance. Since Dole has secured the nomination, he has moved away from that position. He has become noticeably accommodative to the abortionists. (When voting on bills directly dealing with abortion, Dole has taken a pro-life stance. When voting on bills dealing indirectly with abortion, such as “family planning” legislation, he has generally backed the abortionist position. He has also supported nominees for the Supreme Court who are pro-abortion.) Little difference between Dole and Clinton exists on the abortion issue.

Moreover, he seems to have joined the enemies of the Second Amendment. For a number of years, he supported the right of people to own guns to defend themselves from a despotic government. In recent years he has joined those who seek to deny the people this right. He was instrumental in the passage of the Brady bill. Furthermore, he supported the crime bill that banned “assault weapons” and prevented the introduction of a bill to repeal this ban. Again little difference between Dole and Clinton exists.

Both Dole and Clinton are internationalists, i.e., favor using U. S. troops to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Both pushed for the passage of GATT and NAFTA. (These “treaties” have nothing to do with free trade other than giving free trade a bad name. Their purpose is to transfer the control of trade to an international body and strip members of the pacts of their sovereignty.) Both favor most-favored-nation treatment for China, the greatest tyranny on the planet. No real difference exists between Dole and Clinton in foreign policy and foreign trade.

That Dole would abolish affirmative action programs is doubtful. He opposed Republican Reagan’s rescission of Democratic Johnson’s executive order that mandated affirmative action for companies doing business with the federal government. Also, he supported the 1991 “Civil Rights” Act, which is the quota law that now serves as the main federal affirmative action law. That Dole as president would push to abolish affirmative action is incredible. Once more, no real difference exists between Dole and Clinton.

When Clinton first started pushing for socialized health care, Dole was a supporter. He offered compromises that would increase the chances of the program passing the Senate. He only became an opponent of socialized health care when public resistance became widespread. Later, he promoted a bill that would increase federal regulation of private health care by regulating health insurance. This bill moves the country closer to Clinton’s goal to socialize health care. Again Clinton and Dole are the same.

Moreover, Dole has historically supported higher taxes. Newt Gingrich once described him as “the tax collector for the welfare state.” [Some have said that Dole never saw a tax that he did not like.] Tax reduction under Dole is no more likely than tax reduction under Clinton. Both favor heavy taxation.

Furthermore, Dole has been instrumental in getting enacted into law the food stamp program, Martin Luther King’s holiday, American with Disability Act, and other programs that Clinton supports. What difference is there between the two? No significant difference seems to exist in their policies.

In running for the presidency, Dole has followed the advice of Richard Nixon. Nixon advised Dole to run as a conservative to win the nomination and then as a moderate or centralists for the election. If Dole wins the election, America will get what it got with Nixon. The conservatives will get the rhetoric. The liberals will get the action. This would make a Dole administration much like most other post-World War II administration.

One of the great paradoxes of post-World War II American presidential politics is that the greatest growth in the federal government has occurred under Republican presidents. People who would like to see programs advocated by Clinton implemented should support Dole. Those who oppose Clinton’s programs should support Clinton. As shown above, there is not much difference between Dole and Clinton on the issues. However, Dole will be much more successful in implementing Clinton’s programs than Clinton. Clinton will face too much opposition from the Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress to have much success in getting his programs approved. Moreover, his administration will be too distracted by scandal to do too much damage to the country. On the other hand, the only opposition that Dole would face in getting essentially the same programs approved would be from principled conservative Republicans in Congress of whom there are only a few.

Again the American voter is presented with a choice between the lesser of two evils. The apparent lesser evil, Dole, may be a greater evil because he will be more successful.

Copyright © 1996, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political issues articles.

An Inquiry into the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

An Inquiry into the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1985 to the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. Since this was originally written, another amendment has been added to the U.S. Constitution.]

Does the present constitution for the United States reflect the principles embodied in the original document approved by the States between 1787 and 1790? No, the amendments that have been added to it since 1865 have materially changed it. The amendments adopted before 1865 limited the powers of the United States government and preserved the rights [i.e., powers] of the States and the liberties of their citizens.

The first ten amendments, commonly called the Bill of Rights, protect the liberties of the people by limiting the power of the United States government. The Tenth Amendment is the States’ rights amendment. It reserves the powers not delegated to the United States government for the States. Unfortunately, this amendment is now almost forgotten.

The Eleventh Amendment, which was ratified in 1795, is another States’ rights amendment, but it is the last States’ rights amendment. This amendment prevents a State from being sued against its will.

The Twelfth, Twentieth, and Twenty-fifth Amendments are technical in nature. The Twelfth Amendment, which was ratified in 1804, changes the method of voting for President and Vice President. The Twentieth Amendment, which was ratified in 1933. changes the date on which the Presidential and Congressional terms begin. It also clarifies filling the office of the President and Vice President should they become vacant. The Twenty-fifth Amendment further clarifies filling of the offices of the President and Vice President should they become vacant. It also describes the procedures to be followed if the President is temporarily unable to discharge his duties.

The Thirteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1865, outlaws slavery and does change one of the principles in the original Constitution. However, slavery was a dying institution, and the economics of this institution would have soon ended it. Thus, slavery would have ended in fact even if this amendment had never been ratified. Therefore, this amendment has no real effect on the Constitution because the principle it removed, slavery, would have been voluntarily abandoned anyway.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, is one of the three most pernicious amendments ever adopted. This amendment is rivaled only by the misconstrued commerce clause in Section 8 of Article I in destroying the States and the liberties of the people thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment is the foundation of most civil rights laws, forced integration, federal control of schools, and the other miscreant legislation that has extinguished the liberties of the people in their social and political affairs. This amendment legalized the concept of dual citizenship. Heretofore, a person was a citizen of a State and owed his loyalty to that State. Through this amendment, the United States courts have applied the first eight amendments to the States. (Actually, the United States courts do not apply the first eight amendments in toto. Whimsically, they sort of pick and choose what to apply. The guiding light seems to be using the first eight amendments to protect criminals from actions by the States while not protecting law-abiding citizens from encroachment on their liberties by the States.) Also, this amendment disenfranchised most of the loyal political leaders of the South. Moreover, it began the formal conversion of the United States government from a republic to a democracy. Perhaps more than any other amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment has undermined the basic principles of the Constitution. [Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment was never lawfully adopted. Therefore, it should be given no weight in constitutional arguments.]

The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments are also blows to States’ rights and contrary to the principles in the Constitution. The Fifteenth Amendments, which was ratified in l870, eliminates race as a qualification for voting. The Nineteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1920, eliminates sex as a qualification for voting. The Twenty-fourth Amendment, which was ratified in 1964, eliminates the payment of taxes as a qualification for voting. The Twenty-sixth Amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. [Ironically, an eighteen-year-old can vote himself into despotism, but he cannot legally buy a bottle of whiskey to celebrate his vote.] Heretofore, each State determined the qualification of its voters. These amendments deny the States this right. The qualification for voting in most States may comply with these amendments even if they were not part of the Constitution, but not all. Obviously, the voting qualifications of some States would be contrary to one or more of these amendments, or else they would not be needed, Thus, a majority of the States have coerced a minority into accepting their voting qualifications. The coerced minority has been mostly the Southern States. Not only does the doctrine of States’ rights suffer from these amendments, but these amendments add to the subversion of a republic to a democracy.

The Sixteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1913, has done much to destroy the liberties of the people and rob them of their  property. It is one of the three most pernicious amendments adopted. This amendment gives the United States government the power to levy income and inheritance taxes. It is contrary to Part 4 of Section 9 of Article I, which prevents the United States government from levying any direct taxes unless these taxes are levied in proportion to the population of the State. The enforcement of this amendment has virtually vetoed the Bill of Rights. The Sixteenth Amendment is of the envious, by the envious, and for the envious. It is obviously contrary to the basic principles of the Constitution.

The Seventeenth Amendments which was ratified in 1913, has done more than all the other amendments combined to destroy the Republic and convert it into a democracy. This amendment removes the election of Senators from the legislatures of the States and makes Senators popularly elected. Thus, the States are no longer represented. The last check against the tyranny of the majority has been removed. (The Electoral College ceased being a check long ago. It was supposed to be the best men in each State electing the best man in the United States to be President. Now it is a gang of party hacks electing another and bigger party hack who is often a demagogue.) Without a doubt, this amendment has utterly shattered the doctrine of States’ rights and has put the remaining liberties of the people at great risk. Clearly, this is one of the three most pernicious amendments adopted.

The Eighteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1919, is the prohibition amendment. It is contrary to the basic principles of the Constitution and has been repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment.

The Twenty-second Amendment, which was ratified in 1951, limits the term of the President, It makes mandatory the long-standing tradition of no one serving more than two terms as President. This tradition had been violated by a liberal Yankee Democrat. This amendment is in keeping with the basic Constitution.

The Twenty-third Amendment, which was ratified in 1961, gives the District of Columbia the right to participate in the Electoral College. The intent of the Constitution is to keep the District of Columbia out of federal politics since it is the seat of the United States government. This amendment violates this intent and is an affront to States’ rights. It makes the District of Columbia equal to the States in selecting the President and Vice President. Thus, it is another blow to States’ rights.

[In 1992, the Twenty-seventh Amendment was adopted; it had been proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is in accordance with the basic principles of the Construction. It delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives.]

The Constitution as it now stands with its amendments does not reflect the principles for which our forefathers fought in the 1770s and l860s. It does not reflect the principles for which most people  believed that they were fighting in the four wars of this century [that is, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War]. The amended Constitution is completely alien to the Constitution as originally adopted.

The amendments to the Constitution since 1865 have destroyed the basic principles embodied in it to the point that it is amazing that any remnants of republicanism, States’ rights, and individual liberty still exist. The only hope that Southerners have to regain these lost ideals of republicanism, States’ rights, and individual liberty is a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States.

Copyright © 1995, 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.