Honor God - Defend the Family - Restore the Republic
Scott Bradley


Keep the Spirit Alive and Well!
Learn to think like the Founders and pass it on!


Scott Bradley Explains

7) Entangling Alliances
Because they were astute observers of the workings of men and nations, the founders of this Nation wisely admonished the Nation to avoid relationships with foreign powers which would cause the Nation to be drawn into international controversy and conflict. Their solemn admonition was to avoid what they termed "entangling alliances."

Many dozens of instances could be cited which would unequivocally establish the founder’s position in this matter, but a few statements must suffice:

In his monumental "Farewell Address," George Washington counseled us:

"Europe has a set of primary interests, which have to us none, or very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities.

"Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?"


Washington restated his intentions in this matter in a letter to Patrick Henry in 1795, explaining that his purpose was "to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others." (GW to Patrick Henry 09 Oct 1795, Fitzpatrick 35:334-335)

Thomas Jefferson had much to say on the matter, stating, at various times:

"I know that it is a maxim with us, and I think it a wise one, not to entangle ourselves with the affairs of Europe."—Ford 4:483. (1787.)

"The Constitution thought it wise to restrain the executive and Senate from entangling and embroiling our affairs with those of Europe."—Manual of Parliamentary Practice. Bergh 2:442. (1800.)

"Determined as we are to avoid, if possible, wasting the energies of our people in war and destruction, we shall avoid implicating ourselves with the powers of Europe, even in support of principles which we mean to pursue. They have so many other interests different from ours that we must avoid being entangled in them. We believe we can enforce these principles, as to ourselves, by peaceable means, now that we are likely to have our public councils detached from foreign views."—To Thomas Paine. Ford 8:18. (1801.)

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property, and lives of their people. On our part, never had a people so favorable a chance of trying the opposite system of peace and fraternity with mankind, and the direction of all our means and faculties to the purposes of improvement instead of destruction."—To President James Monroe. Bergh 15:436. (1823.)

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of kings to war against the principles of liberty."—To Elbridge Gerry. Bergh 10:77. (1799.)

And perhaps the following statement, which Jefferson made in his First Inaugural Address, most succinctly captures the essence of his position:

"I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."—First Inaugural Address. Bergh 3:321. (1801.)

Of course, there were other prominent founders who reinforced the official position of the United States, such as this statement which John Quincy Adams made in a July 4th 1821 speech:

"America has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings....She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

And, in the inspired "Monroe Doctrine" we find James Monroe’s great wisdom:

"In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do....Our policy in regard to Europe...is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers..." (James Monroe, Monroe Doctrine)

This position became the official policy of the United States, and was largely followed until the 20th century. The United States grew and prospered under it. And we avoided the almost constant bloodshed which was occurring throughout the rest of the world.

We, as a Nation, now find ourselves constantly embroiled in the conflicts of belligerent nations around the world. This is because we have abandoned the sound doctrines which were implemented as this Nation was established. Our involvement in global conflict has become epidemic since the United States abandoned the advice of the Nation’s founders, and entangled itself with international, globalist organizations: The United Nations, NATO, SEATO, CENTO, etc. etc.

Since we have embraced these "entangling alliances," the United States has fought to a bloody stalemate in Korea, assisted in the enslavement of the Christian province of Katanga in Africa, endured the agony of Southeast Asia, squandered our blood and treasure in countless "police actions," (the United States military is currently deployed in over 130 locations world-wide, in which we are basically "trip-wires" between potentially hostile parties); and we are currently embroiled in numerous locations, such as the morass of the Middle East, as well as in a religious civil war in Kosovo which has been going on for centuries. And almost all of these conflicts have been entered into at the behest of the United Nations, or one of its "authorized subsets." Since becoming involved with the UN, the United States has been drawn into a steady stream of almost constant and unremitting wars and rumors of wars.

In the matters of war and international relations as noted herein, the wisdom of the Nation’s founders could never be more apparent!

This Nation must awaken and arouse itself to a sense of its awful situation, turn from the false entangling philosophies which have been so highly organized, so cleverly disguised, and so powerfully promoted for so many years, and return to the sound principles upon which this Nation was founded, and which allowed the Nation to become the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most respected, and happiest nation on earth.

We must seek the withdrawal of the United States from this insidious effort to involve the United States in entangling alliances which constantly draw the Nation into undeclared, un-Constitutional international conflicts.

Scott N. Bradley

top of pagetop

8) To Regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations
Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to collect "...Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debt and provide for the common Defense..." In Federalist Paper Number 45, James Madison indicated that the primary source of these revenues for performing the responsibilities of the national government would be import taxes collected as foreign goods were brought into this country:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected." (James Madison, Federalist No. 45)

Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall...regulate commerce with foreign nations."

Article VI, clause 3 of the United States Constitution specifically states: "The Senators and Representatives...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

In light of the fact that the individual members of Congress have sworn by their oath of office to abide within the bounds established within the Constitution of the United States, the members of Congress are required by their oath of office to uphold the sovereignty and independence of the United States, and act within their duty as assigned within the Constitution.

The United States Constitution directs that the United States Congress is the body that is to regulate commerce with foreign nations. While constantly ignored today, constitutional protocol dictates that authority delegated to a legislative body cannot be "re-delegated" by that body. Constitutional protocol was well understood by those who founded this nation, and they knew that the authority which was assigned within the Constitution could not legally be delegated to another entity.
This matter of delegation was reviewed in # 5 Seperation of Powers
In light of this, it is the sole responsibility of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Congress cannot constitutionally delegate that responsibility to any other organization, especially international bureaucracies that were not elected by the citizens of the United States!

In violation of this critically important principle, on numerous occasions Congress has unconstitutionally voted to delegate this power to international organizations. In recent years, by their actions in this area, Congress and the Executive branch have consistently and methodically subverted the sovereignty of the United States. By their efforts, power to regulate our commerce with foreign nations has been passed to such organizations as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Other so-called "free trade" agreements are pending and aggressively being fostered, such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which would effectively erase the borders between the United States and Mexico and Canada. To add insult to injury, the United States generally provides the bulk of financial resources to these organizations, and has only one vote in these decidedly anti-American forums.

Approval of these agreements by our national leadership has allowed international non-elected bureaucracies to dictate numerous economic and domestic policies of the United States in a manner which should be solely the prerogative of the United States. Additionally, these agreements eliminate U.S. import fees which were Constitutionally authorized as a revenue source to fund the Nation’s legal activities; and as this revenue source is eliminated, additional burdens are placed upon the backs of American taxpayers, either through additional debt, or through higher internal taxes.

In spite of this reduction of U.S. tariffs, these agreements are not about free trade. They are about managed trade. Trade managed not by Congress as mandated by Article I Section 8 clause 3 of the United States Constitution, but trade managed by supranational unelected bodies of bureaucrats which will never have their actions questioned by an electorate that can unseat them from their pompous appointments.

Of even greater concern is the demonstrable fact that these types of agreements lead, ultimately, to merger into regional governments which subvert national sovereignty. These agreements have far less to do with free trade between nations, and far more to do with subverting the sovereignty of the United States to a globalist organization that does not uphold the principles vouched safe by the United States Constitution

Just as the European Common Market has metastasized into a supranational regional government which dictates economic and domestic policy to the European nations which have joined it, these agreements are precursors to a regional arrangement which will ultimately subvert and destroy our inspired Constitution. As testimony of this, we have the European outcome unfolding right before our eyes, as well as the experience our own nation has had with subversive rulings from both NAFTA and WTO. We are foolish to think that these historical facts will not replicate themselves if we follow the exact path which brought about the European Union (EU).

At the beginning of the American Revolution, the great patriot Patrick Henry stated: "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past." [Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775.—William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, 9th ed., pp. 138-39 (1836, reprinted 1970). Language altered to first person.]

In The Tempest, William Shakespeare observed "...what's past is prologue," meaning the experience of the past is but an introduction to that which is to come. [Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 2, Scene 1]

And in volume one of The Life of Reason we read: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it…. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience." [George Santayana, The Life of Reason, vol. 1, chapter 12, p. 284 (1905).]

In light of this wisdom, our concerns about these sovereignty-destroying agreements are well-founded. We may learn valuable lessons from the glaring example of the history of the European Union, and from that example we may learn how regional governments which subvert national governments are born. We also have the painful history of many examples of where the actions taken under authority of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO have undermined the ability of the United States to act independently and to our national benefit. We must learn from these experiences. And wisdom would dictate that we modify our path to return to one that is both Constitutionally sound, and also protective of our national interests.

It is imperative that the members of the United States Congress stand forth and exercise the most vigorous efforts possible within the proper authority of their respective Offices to wrest from the clutches of foreign entities this critically important power, and restore their Constitutional responsibility to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

Scott N. Bradley
top of pagetop

9) Money

"Congress shall have power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;..." (US Constitution, Article I Section 8, clause 5)

"No State shall...coin money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..." (US Constitution, Article I, Section 10, clause 1)

In simplest terms, money is a medium of exchange by which goods which are desired are obtained. Since the beginning of time, mankind has exchanged goods and services through various mediums of exchange. Long before the Founders of this Nation set about establishing the Nation's money standard, thousands of years of mankind's experience had defined the requirements of a successful, stable money system. Barter systems initially prevailed (exchanging a cow for pigs). Challenges developed when one had a cow or a pig and wanted a few eggs for a meal. Multiple exchanges became necessary to come to an exchange which was fair to both parties. Facilitating easy exchanges necessitated finding an exchange medium (money) which was universally acceptable to all who may wish to exchange. Experience determined that money must have intrinsic value in order to be desirable for exchange. It must be easily divisible to assure that exact amounts could be given upon exchange. It must be durable so it would not be lost through exposure to the elements, or moth, or corrosion. And it must be relatively scarce. Precious metals met all requirements: intrinsic value, easily divisible, durable, and relative scarcity.

To finance the Revolutionary War, both the National government and the States had resorted to printing paper money which was backed by the "full faith and credit" of the government, but was not fully redeemable with "real" money. The money was not tied to precious metal. The experience was a disaster. The economy collapsed. Unbacked paper does not meet the defined qualifications for money: it does not have intrinsic value, it is not durable, and it certainly is not scarce.

In recognition of their painful experience with paper money, the Founding Fathers of this Nation sought to prevent future forays in this area, and to establish the Nation upon sound economic principles.

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, they debated the issue of paper money. James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention clearly indicates their "original intent" to preclude the Nation from suffering under a paper money supply. Noting the experience in the early history of this Nation, and of nations in Europe, it was suggested that allowing the government to print paper money "would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation." It was also noted that the entire proposed constitution would be a failure if the power to print money was allowed. The Convention voted in favor of preventing the issue of unbacked paper money. (See James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, Vol.2, p.541-543 [Thursday 16 August 1787]) Later debates in the Convention confirm the concerns held about paper money. (See James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, Vol.2, p.620)

Also, in Federalist Papers 42 and 44 James Madison briefly touches upon the issue of paper money.

Brevity necessitates that only a few statements by the Nation's Founders be noted:

George Washington wrote:

"I am well aware that appearances ought to be upheld, and that we should avoid as much as possible recognizing by any public act the depreciation of our currency; but I conceive this end would be answered, as far as might be necessary, by stipulating that all money payments should be made in gold and silver, being the common medium of commerce among nations." (To the President of Congress. Fitzpatrick 11:217. [1778]).

"Every other effort is in vain unless something can be done to restore [the currency's] credit... The liberties and safety of this country depend upon it; the way is plain; the means are in our power. But it is virtue alone that can effect it." (To Edmund Pendleton. Fitzpatrick 17:52. [1779]).

"Experience has demonstrated the impracticality long to maintain a paper credit without funds for its redemption. The long depreciation of our currency was in the main a necessary effect of the want of those funds." (To John Laurens. Fitzpatrick 21:106. [1781]).

"Uniformity in the currency [and in the] weights and measures of the United States is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to." (First Annual Address to Congress. Fitzpatrick 30:493. (1790]).

Thomas Jefferson also felt it critically important to keep the Nation's monetary system on a sound footing, saying:

"One of the great advantages of specie as a medium is that, being of universal value, it will keep itself at a general level....[quoting Adam Smith, Jefferson notes] that 'the commerce and industry of a country cannot be so secure when suspended on the Daedalian wings of paper money as [when] on the solid ground of gold and silver.'" (To John W. Eppes. Bergh 13:412. [1813]).

"Specie is the most perfect medium, because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands; and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war....The trifling economy of paper as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals....[Paper money] is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted." (To John W. Eppes. Bergh 13:430. (1813]).

Through the joint efforts of Washington and Jefferson, Congress to step up to their Constitutionally mandated responsibility to establish a sound monetary system for the United States. Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1792, which firmly established gold and silver as the medium of exchange for the United States. Unfortunately, the Coinage Act of 1965 (which created the base metal coins we have in circulation today which have no intrinsic value), and several other tragic actions by both the Congress and the Executive branch have superceded and subverted the "self evident" truths of a proper monetary system, and the United States is now adrift in a boundless sea in which the financial stability of the Nation has been destroyed.

Inflation is rampant because the national government now creates unbacked debt-based paper money at will to "fund" profligate and wastrel programs which are not allowed under the limits established within the United States Constitution. This dishonest and pernicious practice distorts the economy, erodes personal savings, and places future generations in bondage.

The solution lies in returning to the limited scope and bounds within which the National government was originally established, turning from a process which creates unbacked printing press paper "money" upon the whim of national leaders, and a recognition of real money based upon the wisdom of the ages and the Founder's original intent.

Scott N. Bradley
top of pagetop
"Turn To The Constitution" newsletter is dedicated to Preserving Liberty and Freedom Our Mission