I have now to follow Mr. Burke through a pathless wilderness of rhapsodies, and a sort of descant upon governments, in which he asserts whatever he pleases, on the presumption of its being believed, without offering either evidence or reasons for so doing.

Before anything can be reasoned upon to a conclusion, certain facts, principles, or data, to reason from, must be established, admitted, or denied. Mr. Burke, with his usual outrage, abuses the Declaration of the Rights of Man, published by the National Assembly of France, as the basis on which the Constitution of France is built. This he calls "paltry and blurred sheets of paper about the rights of man."

Does Mr. Burke mean to deny that man has any rights? If he does, then he must mean that there are no such things as rights any where, and that he has none himself; for who is there in the world but man? But if Mr. Burke means to admit that man has rights, the question then will be, what are those rights, and how came man by them originally?

The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity, respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough into antiquity. They do not go the whole way. They stop in some of the intermediate stages of an hundred or a thousand years, and produce what was then done as a rule for the present day. This is no authority at all.

If we travel still further into antiquity, we shall find a directly contrary opinion and practice prevailing; and if antiquity is to be authority, a thousand such authorities may be produced, successively contradicting each other; but if we proceed on, we shall at last come out right; we shall come to the time when man came from the hand of his Maker. What was he then? Man. Man was high and only title, and a higher cannot be given him. But of titles I shall speak hereafter.

We have now arrived at the origin of man, and at the origin of his rights. As to the manner in which the world has been governed from that day to this, it is no further any concern of ours than to make a proper use of the errors or the improvements which the history of it presents. Those who lived a hundred or a thousand years ago, were then moderns as we are now. They had their ancients, and those ancients had others, and we also shall be ancients in our turn.

If the mere name of antiquity is to govern in the affairs of life, the people who are to live an hundred or a thousand years hence, may as well take us for a precedent, as we make a precedent of those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago.

The fact is, that portions of antiquity, by proving every thing, establish nothing. It is authority against authority all the way, till we come to the divine origin of the rights of man, at the Creation. Here our inquiries find a resting-place, and our reason finds a home.

If a dispute about the rights of man had arisen at a distance of an hundred years from the Creation, it is to this source of authority they must have referred, and it is to the same source of authority that we must now refer.

Though I mean not to touch upon any sectarian principle of religion, yet it may be worth observing that the genealogy of Christ is traced to Adam. Why then not trace the rights of man to the creation of man? I will answer the question. Because there have been upstart governments, thrusting themselves between, and presumptuously working to unmake man.

If any generation of men ever possessed the right of dictating the mode by which the world should be governed for ever, it was the first generation that existed; and if that generation did it not, no succeeding generation can show any authority for doing it, nor can set any up.

The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man (for it has its origin from the Maker of Man), relates not only to the living individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other. Every generation is equal in rights to the generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary.

Every history of the Creation, and every traditionary account, whether from the lettered or unlettered world, however they may vary in their opinion or belief of certain particulars, all agree in establishing one point, the unity of man; by which I mean that men are all of one degree, and consequently that all men are born equal, and with equal natural rights, in the same manner as if posterity had been continued by creation instead of generation, the latter being only the mode by which the former is carried forward; and consequently, every child born into the world must be considered as deriving its existence from God. The world is as new to him as it was to the first man that existed, and his natural right in it is the same kind.

The Mosaic account of the Creation, whether taken as divine authority or merely historical, is full to this point, the unity or equality of man. The expressions admit of no controversy. "And God said, let us make man in our own image. In the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." The distinction of sexes is pointed out, but no other distinction is even implied. If this be not divine authority, it is at least historical authority, and shows that the equality of man, so far from being a modern doctrine, is the oldest upon record.

[F.A.C.T.S. Comments: This is the authority from which the basic human rights (intellectual rights) found in the First Article of the Bill of Rights were formed from. That is why the first clause of that First Article clearly spells out to Congress; "Congress shall make no law...." which interferes with, or infringes upon those basic human rights found in the First Article. Question: So where do the Senators and Representatives in Congress, get their authority from, to interfere with and infringe on those basic human rights? Answer: Congress has no authority whatsoever, not God given, constitutional, or otherwise, except other than from the authority of their own ego inflicted evil ways of ruling by greed, tyranny, and oppression! So much for the conservative Federalist position which currently dominates Federal government thinking.]

It is also to be observed, that all the religions known in the world are founded, so far as they relate to man, on the unity of man, as being all of one degree. Whether in heaven or in hell, or in whatever state man may be supposed to exist hereafter, the good and the bad are the only distinctions. Nay, even the laws of governments are obligated to slide into this principle, by making degrees to consist in crimes and not in persons.

It is one of the greatest of all truths, and of the highest advantage to cultivate. By considering man in this light, and by instructing him to consider himself in this light, it places him in a close connection with all his duties, whether to his Creator or to the creation, of which he is a part; and it is only when he forgets his origin, or, to use a more fashionable phrase, his birth and family, that he becomes dissolute.

It is not among the least of the evils of the present existing governments in all parts of Europe, that man, considered as man, is thrown back to a vast distance from his Maker, and the artificial chasm filled up by a succession of barriers, or a sort of turnpike gates, through which he has to pass.

I will quote Mr. Burke's catalog of barriers that he has set up between man and his Maker. Putting himself in the character of a herald, he says - "We fear God - we look with awe to kings - with affection to parliaments - with duty to magistrates - with reverence to priests, and with respect to nobility." Mr. Burke has forgotten to put in "chivalry." He has also forgotten to put in Peter.

The duty of man is not a wilderness of turnpike gates, through which he is to pass tickets from one to the other. It is plain and simple, and consists of two points. His duty to God, which every man must feel; and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by. If those to whom power is delegated do well, they will be respected; if not, they will be despised; and with regard to those to whom no power is delegated, but who assume it, the rational world can know nothing of them.

Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it is necessary to make the different qualities of natural and civil rights.

A few words to explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society.

Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.

From this short review, it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society, and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society.

The natural rights which he retains, are all those in which the power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind: consequently, religion is one of those rights.

The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it: but what availeth it him to judge, if he has not the power to redress? He therefore deposits his right in the common stock of society, and takes the arm of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.

From these premises, two or three certain conclusions will follow.

First, That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged.

Secondly, That civil power, properly considered as such, is made up of the aggregate of that class of natural rights of man, which becomes defective in the individual point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus, becomes competent to the purpose of every one.

Thirdly, That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself.

We have now, in a few words, traced man from a natural individual to a member of society, and shown, or endeavored to show, the quality of the natural rights retained, and those which are exchanged for civil rights. Let us now apply those principles to governments.

In casting our eyes over the world, it is extremely easy to distinguish the governments which have arisen out of society, or out of the social compact, from those which have not: but to place this in a clearer light than what a single glance may afford, it will be proper to take a review of the several sources from which the governments have arisen, and on which they have been founded.

They may be all comprehended under three heads. First, superstition. Secondly, power. Thirdly, the common interests of society, and the common rights of man.

The first was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, and the third of reason.

When a set of artful men pretended, through the medium of oracles, to hold intercourse with the Deity [Pat Robertson of Christian Broadcasting Network, other Television Evangelists [Jerry Falwell], and other leaders of monotheistic deity worship], as familiarly as they now march up the backstairs in European courts, the world was completely under the government of superstition. The oracles were consulted, and whatever they were made to say, became the law [FACT: origin of current Common Law]; and this sort of government lasted as long as this sort of superstition lasted.

1791

F.A.C.T.S. Notes: Notice the very close similarities and close ties between that type of government structure and the church connection that Thomas Paine mentioned, when compared with the current social and political situation of Federal government in 1998. Those same similarities are found in the loving relationship of the Christian Coalition and other's, in their(indirect) direct marriage to ultra-conservative Federalist members of Congress, which currently by the way, makes up the political majority in Congress. The membership to this exclusive ultra-conservative Federalist government marriage to Christianity (monotheism) is by their request and RSVP only! Also look at the marriage in the Arab countries of their governments to the radical conservative extremists of Islam. Invitation for membership in this good-old-Arab-boys-club is by harsh manipulation and persuasion, and rejection to acceptance usually results in death. Both forms leave out the concerns and well being of the masses of people in their societies. Starting to get a little clearer picture of what's going on in our current World governments?

Here are a couple more questions about the Federal government and maybe they will ask more than you think at first reading. Maybe they will also start filling in the blanks of who and why.

Is the Federal government really building a philosophy and a bridge to the future, for the masses in American society, that will aid them and humankind for generations to come? Or, are those same conservative Federalists in power, that hold such a vicious hostage like grip on Congress, by use of stirring up a Nationalist "feeding-frenzy" over the issues of flag desecration and other constitutionally protected basic human rights, really building a doorway back to the Dark Ages of Civilizations? This was a time when there was no social progress or basic human rights for the masses of humankind and society, and bondage was the everyday and eternal creed of all humanity on Earth! The select few ruled and the masses slaved, paved and paid! Sounds like a pretty nifty place to live, doesn't it, want to live there??? Guess what, you almost do!

Remember, Thomas Paine just spoke of a similar society and time, or was it really just the echo of a warning given to us two hundred years ago - so we would never forget who we were, and the evils that can befall us and our governments on our walk through life. Warnings have a way of repeating themselves, and most often right before the catastrophe happens! Hindsight philosophy is a product of conservative Federalist consciousness.

EXAMPLE: The tragic Embassy bombings that occurred in August of 1998. It was known well in advance, by those in power, that these bombings would in fact take place, it was just a matter of when. Little to no preparations were made to adequately protect the Embassies.

For those that are wanting a more detailed and closer look at just what a real conservative is, and what exactly makes up that harmful and negative consciousness, then be ready to be surprised by the factual and enlightening information in store for you at, Conservatives and Liberals - The Real Truth!
Note: Conservatives and Liberals is Under Construction and should be up within a day or so. Please be patient, the information will be well worth the wait.

See what TCNbp is saying about F.A.C.T.S.

Natural Laws and Basic Human Rights An excellent essay supported by excerpts from the Constitution. Maintainer has spent the past 28 years studying legitimate government and observing the actions of those acting in the name of our government. His concept of federalism (on other pages) earned him a place in my Top Sites list. See maintainers comments for more of my thoughts on this site. TCNbp

Maintainer's Comments You may think that you already know what Federalism is. And maybe you do. Then again, I doubt that you've spent 28 years mulling this over. If not, you should visit F.A.C.T.S. You may have to browse around a little bit to get a sense of all the things that are going on that are related to the maintainer's concept of Federalism, but whatever your thoughts on the topic may be, it's worth it.
That's what got this site placed on my Top Sites list. TCNbp

Click on the World Peace and the F.A.C.T.S. banner at top of this page to go to The F.A.C.T.S. Directory.

Here are just two of many sites that fill the well over 20 different sites that have already been created by F.A.C.T.S., and that number will continue to grow.

F.A.C.T.S. Email

Want to know more about what has already been said, and about the "silent conspiracy" that has been steadily destroying the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the American people themselves? Then click the flag to go to FEDCON: Death of the American Republic, book section. This is the book that exposes the great, but no longer silent conspiracy that the people have been hearing about for generations. Find out for yourself who and what is destroying America. Discover that there are positive solution's to today's problems and that these solution's are within reach of the masses of the people. Over twenty years of research went into the making of this book. Make a FREE copy for yourself or a friend, some restrictions apply, see book section for more details.

United States Bill of Rights - Read the original Bill of Rights as it was presented to the several states and then ratified by them. This is the "unrevised version" and shows the Preamble and other important wording that was intentionally left out of the federalist revised version of the Bill of Rights. Also includes the two Articles that were not ratified by the States.
Bill of Rights