Tuesday, April 27, 2010

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”

Speech at a County Meeting of Buckinghamshire (1784)- Edmond Burke

It has been said that for a culture or society to be successful it has to promote virtue among its people. But how does a society promote virtue? A friend of mine asked me this week to write on America’s loss as a society, the generation of people who fought in World War II. My friend sees the WWII battle of Iwo Jima as picture of a generation of Americans who were willing to sacrifice everything for there country. It seems that this dying generation of American’s had virtue we rarely see today. Without trying to romanticize and make the battle of Iwo Jima into a melodrama, instead, we should never forget the 6000 men who lost there lives for 8 square miles of land in February and March 1945. (contrast this with the second Iraqi War). “As of Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at least 4,393 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.” Because there is such a lack of virtue in our society today, it was commonly reported that we were losing the war in Iraq due to our growing number of military casualties. Senate Majority leader Henry Reid even declared the war lost. You wonder what Senator Reid would have said during the battle of Iwo Jima?


The American service men who gave their lives at Iwo Jima and all the other great battles of WWII had something in common. These service men still had the lingering effects of virtue promoted in American society. The Webster 1828 dictionary states that virtue is “Moral goodness; the practice of moral duties and the abstaining from vice, or a conformity of life and conversation to the moral law. In this sense, virtue may be, and in many instances must be, distinguished from religion. The practice of moral duties merely from motives of convenience, or from compulsion, or from regard to reputation, is virtue, as distinct from religion. The practice of moral duties from a sincere love to God and his laws, is virtue and religion. Virtue is nothing but voluntary obedience to truth.”

American history paints a picture of our country founded on what has become known as Judeo-Christian principles. These principles state that a transcendent God is the standard of morality. The God of the Old and New Testaments give us the standard of morality and hence creates the proper understanding of true virtue. As the definition above clearly points out that if a person who does something moral even though he/she might not be religious they still have virtue. Yet the moral underpinning is always founded on some religious doctrine or teaching. For America the moral underpinning has always been found in Bible.

Dennis Prager states “…There are no moral "facts" if there is no God; there are only moral opinions. Years ago, I debated this issue at Oxford with Jonathan Glover, currently the professor of ethics at King's College, University of London, and one of the leading atheist moralists of our time. Because he is a man of rare intellectual honesty, he acknowledged that without God, morality is subjective. He is one of the few secularists who do.” 


My contention is that the generation of American’s that fought WWII were raised in the fumes of men like John Winthrop, Cotton Mather, and George Whitefield. I could easily add a hundred more names to that list but this should do for now. Listen to part of the introduction of Governor Winthrop’s “A Model of Charity”:

God Almighty in His most holy and wise providence hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in subjection. The reasons hereof: first, to hold conformity with the rest of His works, being delighted to show forth the glory of His wisdom in the variety and difference of the creatures and the glory of his power, in ordering all these differences for the preservation and good of the whole, and the glory of his greatness that as it is the glory of princes to have many officers, so this great King will have many stewards counting Himself more honored in dispensing His gifts to man by man, then if He did it by His own immediate hand. Secondly, that He might have the more occasion to manifest the work of His Spirit: first, upon the wicked in moderating and restraining them: so that the rich and mighty should not eat up the poor, nor the poor, and despised rise up against their superiors, and shake off their yokes; secondly, in the regenerate in exercising His graces in them, as in the great ones, their love, mercy, gentleness, temperance, etc., in the poor and inferior sort, their faith, patience, obedience, etc. Thirdly, that every man might have need of other, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bond of brotherly affection; from hence it appears plainly that no man is made more honorable than another or more wealthy etc., out of any particular and singular respect to himself but for the glory of his creator and the common good of creature, man; Therefore God still reserves the property of these gifts to himself…by the first of these laws man as he was enabled so withal is commanded to love his neighbor as himself. Upon this ground stands all the precepts of the moral law, which concerns our dealings with men. To apply this to the works of mercy this law requires two things: first, that every man afford his help to another in every want or distress; secondly, that he perform this out of the same affection, which makes him careful of his own good according to that of our Savior.”

Essays to Do Good by Cotton Mather:

In a word, the kingdom of God in the world, calls for innumerable services from us. To do such things is to do good. Those men devise good, who shape any devices to do things of such a tendency, whether the things be of a spiritual importance, or of a temporal.”

The Method of Grace by George Whitefield:

“…First, then, before you can speak peace to your hearts, you must be made to see, made to feel, made to weep over, made to bewail, your actual transgressions against the law of God. According to the covenant of works,’The soul that sinneth, it shall die; cursed is that man, be he what he may, be he who he may, that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.’ We are not only to do some things, but we are to do all things, and we are to continue so to do; so that the least deviation from the moral law, according to the covenant of works, whether in thought, word, or deed, deserves eternal death at the hand of God…My business this morning, the first day of the week, is to tell you that Christ is willing to be reconciled to you. Will any of you be reconciled to Jesus Christ? Then, he will forgive you all your sins, he will blot out all your transgressions.”

These men and many more like them influenced the shape and character of our nation. These sentiments expressed our belief in an objective God in whom we have a moral obligation to follow. As the first great awakening taught (Whitefield), we can not follow God without having our transgressions against Him forgiven. Jesus is the satisfaction God required for forgiveness of sins and hence we do good to our neighbor by serving Christ. The moral law then becomes a guide to Christian conduct, knowing we can never fully keep it, but always trying to live in accordance with it. So for the last 200 years men and women have been raised under that societal standard to one degree or another. When WWII broke out for America in 1941, it would be natural that our culture would see the need to defend our country. And even though many of the men who would give their lives in battle may not have been “Born Again” Christians our society’s biblical flavor would have indorsed the general concept that is captured in these verses:

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

1 John 3:16
We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

So as you can see, men who were not “Christians” that suffered and fought at Iwo Jima in 1945 had virtue because they did what the moral law commanded even though many of them may not have been entirely conscience of that fact. Sadly, the generations since WWII have fallen even farther down the slippery road of apostasy and what was once fumes have been now relegated to mere memories! That is Post-Christian America.

Could there be a new generation of Whitefields, Winthrops, and Mathers?

Please watch this video

Friday, April 16, 2010

The Phony Lincoln


The main stream media would like us to believe a lie about the so-called comparison between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln. The reason why this is a lie of ‘grandiose proportions” originates from a carefully choreographed story. For example read this CBS news report that is supposed to give Obama-Lincoln similarities.   

(CBS) Barack Obama's arrival in Washington by train today harkens back to the inaugural White House trip of the former President who is Obama's political idol: Abraham Lincoln. In 1861, our 16th President rode the rails through New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania en route to the capital.

The train rides are another symbolic link between Lincoln and Obama. The parallels range from the superficial - their tapered physiques, their young children living in the White House - to the serious: Lincoln freed the slaves, and Obama will be the first African-American president.
From the start of his political career, Obama seems to have modeled himself on Lincoln. Both were born in other states - Hawaii for Obama, Kentucky for Lincoln - before settling in Illinois. Each became a lawyer then served in the state legislature before serving a single term in Congress. Each rocketed onto the national political stage with powerful speeches and became commander-in-chief without any military experience.


CBS seems to be more interested in propaganda then truth.Let me provide one clear example that shows Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln have virtually nothing in common. While serving as an economics teacher in a local academy I came across this quote by Abraham Lincoln.

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.”

(Abraham Lincoln quoted by Russell Kirk in, Economics: Work and Prosperity, page 221)

The quote of Lincoln shows that their is a fundamental difference in Mr. Lincoln’s view on economics. Mr. Obama is completely opposite to Mr. Lincoln’s basic understanding of the American economy. Mr. Obama gives an illusion to Mr. Lincoln because of the political benefits he receives from it (riding Lincoln’s coat tails). But peel back one layer of that onion and you have a complete fabrication of the truth.

Read this article about the real Obama economic agenda and see how different he really is from Lincoln!    

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (8/19/08), taxes paid by small business people earning $250,000 or more each years will be distributed to those who pay little or no federal income tax. If a tax credit is $1,000 but otherwise the tax payer would pay only $200, the U.S. Government, under Obama's redistribution plan, would get a check for $800. Those who pay no income tax at all would get a check for $1000.

Obama Redistribution Program Reviews


  • Over half-a-million taxpayers with business income would be subject to Obama's tax increase. According to the Tax Policy Center, 663,608 tax payers with business income (or losses) fall into the top tax brackets and could be subject to Obama's tax increase. (9/08/08)

Manchester Union Leader

  • Obama's plan...is failed distributionism wrapped up in pretty new paper. That isn't change. It is a failure of imagination. And it is a betrayal of trust in the American people and of the ideals on which this great and free nation was founded. (10/15/08)

Wall Street Journal

  • Its a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans pay no income taxes at all. There are several sleight of hands, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
  • For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase, "tax credit. Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals. (10/13/08)

Read more at Suite101: Obama and Redistribution of Wealth Program: Tax Plans Punish the American Dream of Success http://us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/obama_and_distribution_of_wealth_program#ixzz0l0Xbpg66

If Mr. Lincoln could speak from the grave here is what he might say to Mr. Obama:

”Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”
Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln's Own Stories
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)


Mr. Obama’s tree seems different than his shadow!

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

A Conservative Valley Forge


As the spring months are upon us it may be hard or even unpleasant to think about winter. However, it seems to me that we might be in a political Valley Forge. Let your mind go back to that fateful story:

“Washington in 1777 took up his winter quarters at Valley Forge, to the north of Philadelphia. At the end of every campaign there were many desertions, and he was now reduced to about nine thousand men, of whom another third were to melt away by spring. Short of clothing and shelter, they shivered and grumbled through the winter months, while in Philadelphia, a score of miles away, nearly twenty thousand well-equipped English troops were quartered in comfort. The social season was at its height, and the numerous Loyalists in the capital made the stay of Gen. Howe and his officers pleasing and cheerful.” (This is according to Sir Winston Churchill The Age of Revolution page 200)

The progressives are like the English in Philadelphia well quartered and enjoying society while we conservatives are quartered in Valley Forge for the winter. The British really did not take serious the American Continental Army. Nor did they think that Gen. Washington was an equal as a military commander. The modern liberals do not really take serious the conservative movement. In their mind the principles of conservatives are out-dated and ineffective. The basic presuppositions of progressive liberals mitigate against taking conservatives seriously. That is why many have said, “to be a conservative is to be a dying breed.”   

Before the election of Barack Obama the saying that "the conservative movement was dead in America" became popular.  

“I hereby officially pronounce the conservative movement dead. May it rest in peace. It was killed by its faith in men, not principles – men like George W. Bush. The appointments of John Roberts as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Harriet Miers as associate justice serve as the epitaphs for the political movement. But even before these betrayals, conservatism was on life support. It could not have survived the irresponsible spending by the Republican Congress, approved by the president during the last five years.” http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46646

Author Joseph Farah gives us keen insight into the problem within the conservative movement. We should acknowledge that many conservatives lost sight of core principles and trusted men. But there is renewed strength coming from people who hold to the basic beliefs of the conservative movement and these people are making their voices heard. The strength of Valley Forge was not Washington’s brilliant military tactics, he had not won a battle yet! Nor was it his strength of character. It was the principles he was fighting for that kept him and his men from surrendering.

The strength of what is known as the conservative movement has always been the basic belief in a set of principles that should guide all who serve in civil government.

A basic guide to conservative principles are outlined by Russell Kirk: http://http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html   

Even though Prof. Kirk does a good job in explaining modern conservatism and he is worth the time to read, conservatism has a deeper root that flows out of the Protestant Reformation. Economist Max Weber points this out in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. However, as the true church is in decline, so is the ethic of work. The open door for progressives is the declining church in society not a superior set of ideas. In fact, the basic tenant of progressivism is of man’s perfectibility. This is a lie and The Fundamental flaw they never recover from.

Kirk states “conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.”

We agree with Prof. Kirk but as you know he is just giving creed to the Protestant doctrine of total depravity.

"Total Depravity: Although fallen persons are capable of externally good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, i.e., pleasing to God (Rom. 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from his ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is therefore incapable of contributing anything to his salvation."
John Frame

"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty."
John Calvin

It is these real principles that guide us and help us to make wise decisions. It is faith in God and his Son Jesus Christ that keep us from surrendering. At Valley Forge the Continental Army was willing to suffer for the cause of freedom. We might be in the winter but we have real hope. Today, many are willing to renew their belief in our founding principles but let us never make the mistake of seeing these founding principles apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This November, may we who love Christ and our country say: 

Song 2:11-13
For behold, the winter is past,
The rain is over and gone.
'The flowers have already appeared in the land;
The time has arrived for pruning the vines,
And the voice of the turtledove has been heard in our land.
The fig tree has ripened its figs,
And the vines in blossom have given forth their fragrance.
Arise, my darling, my beautiful one,
And come along!'

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Big Society and Not Big Government?

As a conservative (politically speaking) it could be said that any decline in power the progressives experience would cause me to rejoice. However, I don’t feel joy when thinking about David Cameron the conservative Tory leader in the UK. Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe that the Labor Party in the UK needs to be removed. Not only has the Labor Party bankrupt a leading economic ally of the United States but their administration has been a source of alleged corruption and scandal. It seems that many view Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his administration as the people who are responsible  for Britain's “Big Government” economic melt-down.

David Cameron and the Tories are betting that their idea of a “Big Society” instead of “Big Government” will win the coming election. Should we be suprised to find out that most people in the UK know that the Labor party's over spending on British entitlements can not be sustained. You can not spend what you don’t have! (Obama should take notice of this). Having said that, I believe Mr. Cameron’s “Big Society” is a failure just waiting to happen too!

According to a Daily Mail online article, Mr. Cameron wants to reverse societal breakdown by having “ every adult to be a member of a neighborhood group as he pledged to create an 'army' of 5,000 trained community organizers to help people tackle social problems.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262529/David-Cameron-plans-neighbourhood-army-help-mend-broken-Britain.html#ixzz0jrxc1WMA

The reason why this will fail is simple, Mr. Cameron has the wrong presuppositions about government and its role in society. I feel terrible that Great Britain is experiencing “societal breakdown.” But this breakdown can be traced right to the door of the church. Once a pillar in the Christian faith, Britain is just a shell of its former self. The true church in Britain is almost non-existent. If Mr. Cameron thinks morals and neighborhoods will return with out religion (Christianity), and people will just serve one another because it is the right thing to do, he is an anthropological fool. Maybe, good old George Washington could help out here?

One of the reasons the founding fathers limited government in the US Constitution was to free religion and churches (Christian) to “use persuasion and influence (not force) upon people generally as well as on those who govern.” (see Clarence B. Carson’s book Basis American Government page 61-62) Historically speaking the Americans got this right but as Carson points out the roots of this came from our British background!

Again, “The Constitution does not proclaim that religion is simply a private matter about which there can be no public concern. On the contrary, the founders of the United States believed that support of religion was essential to the well being of the state. As George Washington put it in his farewell address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. (Mr. Cameron are you listening?) In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness-these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

As Professor Carson states “Organized religion as well as the faith that sustains men has both supported government, limited it, and held it up to high standards of conduct and activity. To put it simply and directly, without faith in God, government has no transcendental sanction or support for its exercise of authority. Scripture makes it abundantly clear in many places that not only is man dependent upon God but also that government is sanctioned by God. Both religion and history have resonated with the affirmations of the profound foundation of government and religion. John Calvin, the great Protestant reformer, said that even among the heathen writers “not one of them has treated of the office of magistrates, of legislation, and civil government without beginning with religion and Divine worship.”

This is quite different than what Mr. Cameron believes as you listen to him The Conservatives are also proposing a new 'national citizens service', putting 16-year-olds on a two-month programme in which they will 'learn to be socially responsible'.And they say they would create an annual 'Big Society Day' to celebrate the work of neighbourhood groups and encourage more people to take part in social action projects.Mr Cameron said his vision, which was derided by political opponents, was 'unashamedly optimistic and unapologetically ambitious'.'But I didn't come into politics to do small things. I don't aspire to run this country to manage Britain's decline,' he added.'I'm here because I want to bring change to this country and I believe we can change this country. Think of what individuals and communities can do and any despair is defeated.'We can get our country moving. We can restore hope in our future. We can if we come together, work together and build the big society together.'” Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262529/David-Cameron-plans-neighbourhood-army-help-mend-broken-Britain.html#ixzz0jsEw5y29

As we Camerys see it across the pond the Camerons miss the point again!

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

“Power to the NEW Soviets”

In 1917 Lenin published a speech that coined a popular saying in Russia and really led to the communist take over of that country. Lenin said “Power to the Soviets” and this saying was the battle cry of revolution. The Soviets were workers’ councils that controlled major parts of the economy. For example, the Soviets (workers) controlled the transportation system and other national industrial resources. The power to control parts of the economy allowed the Soviets to bring down a  weak provisional government and sweep Vladimir Lenin into power.

“By the end of 1917, Petrograd was in turmoil. Workers were taking over factories and Lenin’s slogan, ‘Power to the Soviets’, was becoming reality. Together with Leon Trotsky, head of the Petrograd Soviet, Lenin…hurriedly planned for an armed uprising.”

Here is what the history student should learn when studying this story.

  1. The Russian “Bourgeoisie” in 1917 was the middle class not just the super rich (Tsar and his family) of society.
  2. The Bolsheviks not only believed in the redistribution of wealth but it was one of their core values.
  3. Lenin’s lie was that he wanted the poor uneducated workers (the majority) to run the country. But in fact only a well-organized political party (Lenin’s Bolsheviks) could do that. So Lenin would act as a vanguard for the people and secure their interests.
  4. Russian Communism (Marxism-Leninism) is a Political Dictatorship that seizes power at the behest of the poor people (workers) but only retains power by totalitarianism. They never intend for the poor to acquire the promise of true societal equality. 

Here is the point, many of the same ideas and presuppositions found in Lenin’s revolution are found in the "hope and change" of the Obama administration (the NEW Soviet). I leave it to you to make the connections. Having said that, here is what Lenin said in his speech of 1917. I have shortened the speech because of space and the unimportant items. I am sure you can find the whole speech on the internet if you desire.

Vladimir Lenin:

“The key question of every revolution is undoubtedly the question of state power. Which class holds the power decides everything…The question of power cannot be evaded or brushed aside, because it is the key question determining everything in a revolution’s development, and in its foreign and domestic policies…Only if power is based, obviously and unconditionally, on a majority of the population can it be stable during a popular revolution, i.e., a revolution which rouses the people, the majority of the workers and peasants, to action. Up to now state power in Russia has virtually remained in the hands of the Bourgeoisie (middle class), who are compelled to make only particular concessions (only to begin withdrawing them the following day), to handout promises (only to fail to carry them out), to search for all sorts of excuses to cover their domination (only to fool the people by a show of honest coalition), etc., etc. In words it claims to be popular, democratic, revolutionary government, but in deeds it is an anti-popular, undemocratic, counter-revolutionary, bourgeois government…Power to the Soviets means radically reshaping the entire old state apparatus, that bureaucratic apparatus which hampers everything democratic. It means removing this apparatus and substituting for it a new, popular one, i.e., a truly democratic apparatus of Soviets, i.e., the organized and armed majority of people-the workers, soldiers and peasants. It means allowing the majority of the people initiative and independence not only in the election of deputies, but also in the state administration, in effecting reforms and various other changes…Only the dictatorship of the proletariat (workers) and the poor peasants is capable of smashing the resistance of the capitalists, of displaying truly supreme courage and determination in the exercise of power, and of securing the enthusiastic, selfless and truly heroic support of the masses both in the army and among the peasants. Power to the Soviets-this is the only way to make further progress gradual, peaceful and smooth, keeping perfect pace with political awareness and resolve of the majority of the people and with their own experience. Power to the Soviets means the complete transfer of the country’s administration and economic control into the hands of the workers and peasants, to whom nobody would dare offer resistance and who, through practice, through their own experience, would soon learn how to distribute the land, products and grain properly.”

It also seems that "The NEW Soviet" would like to have free healthcare!

(The secret of America was its middle class)

Saturday, March 27, 2010

History never forgets!

One of the major inadequacies that the progressives have given us here in the United States is a broken educational system. Thanks to their faulty view of anthropology, which believes in man’s general good nature and his perfectibility, progressives have systematically bankrupted education. One of the telling examples that the youth of the United States are bankrupt is there complete lack of historical knowledge. So, I have posted on this blog, a helpful reminder from history to illustrate my point.

No matter how you view Oliver Cromwell, we can take a lesson from a speech that he delivered to the English parliament. Cromwell in 1648 addressed what was called “The Rump” parliament because this is all that was left of the “Long parliament” after the English civil war. Again, Cromwell thought that the Rump parliament was not acting in the interest of the nation and so his speech is telling because it seems to address similar concerns we might have today with the US congress. I offer this speech with the hopes one can make the association between a failed government then and now.  

Oliver Cromwell:

“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for mess of potage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money; is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your god; which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the commonwealth? Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation, you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this house; and which by God’s help, and strength he has given me, I am now come to do; I command ye therefore, upon peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place; go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! Go! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, Go!”

Do we need a Cromwell?