The Moral Liberal is nationally syndicated through America’s #1 Rated authoritative content provider, NewsTex – as well as syndicated on the traditional Internet through Google News.
Dear Perspective Contributor.
My name is Steve Farrell. I am the Founder and Editor In Chief of The Moral Liberal – a daily full service e-zine dedicated to defending and promoting the Judeo-Christian ethic, limited government, and the American Constitution – or in other words, to defending and promoting the American Founders’ liberalism (sometimes called classical liberalism, though I prefer the term, moral liberalism), and no, not to defending in the least, modern liberalism, the diametric opposite of the American Founding Philosophy. We do so with a unique mix of daily readings in philosophy, law, economics, history, especially utilizing original source materials from the American Founding Era (and we maintain a substantial – and constantly growing – onsite library of these writings) along with some of the best contemporary principle based analysis and commentary in the country.
But what do I mean by principle based? Simply this, we reject, as a general rule, the ‘them against us’ approach of ‘republican vs. democrats’ and in the same manner reject character assaults on individuals. We prefer to stick to the issues and let our readers make their own connections to parties and individuals where they apply – because, frankly, both parties are not in line with the Founding Philosophy anyway; they just contribute to the abandonment of that liberty formula by means which on the surface and in the campaign literature appear quite different, but in substance (the fine print legislative details and attending results) are nearly two peas in the same Statist pod.
Besides, we have no desire to inspire blind loyalty, nor blind hate for the other guy or other party (that’s Lenin’s idea of warfare, not Christ’s), but we do desire to inspire readers to know how to think, to come to discover for themselves fundamental political and moral truths and how to defend and promote them, and we’d like to see that defense and promotion done so in intelligent, resolute, yet respectful (to the views and imperfections of others) ways, or in other words in harmony with the great guiding moral truths the Founders knew to be the Higher Law, or the Natural Law, or the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. I mean consistent with those great and eternal truths which Locke and Blackstone, Jefferson and John Adams firmly believed were discoverable through Right Reason, and could be confirmed as well, by that more sure witness, Revelation.
If this sounds anything like you as a blogger/writer/thinker we are interested in you.
What kind of writers are we looking for?
All sorts: Whether you are a law, political science, history, economics, philosophy, or theology professor of the first order, a nationally known pundit, or just an excellent blogger waiting to be discovered who reasons solidly on the general principles we espouse (no need to line up with us exactly), we will consider having you join our team.
Tell me about yourself, send a link to your work, or just start submitting columns, and I’ll take a look see.
All contributors and bloggers retain full copyright of their work, including the right to simultaneously publish elsewhere – and in most cases will be free to self-post their work at whatever pace is comfortable for them, several per day, or once a quarter. So long as it is good work. We’re happy.
Until self-posting rights are acquired, submissions should be addressed to Steve Farrell at [email protected]. A brief bio/byline should be inserted at the bottom of your column with a live link to your blog or website or both if you wish to advertise it (at no cost).
Generally columns should not exceed 1200 words in length (450-700 words seems to work best), though we do accept much longer columns especially if they are scholarly works.
We are particularly looking for blogs/columns/essays/research pieces that fit into our mission statement of “Defending the Judeo-Christian ethic, limited government, and the American Constitution.” So look around, read our stuff, and come up with something that fits in, or might build upon or compliment our mission in some way.
For instance, beyond what we already offer, well written and well thought out blogs, columns, or scholarly articles which:
- utilize the Classics and or strong reasoning skills to defend the values of Western Civilization;
- draw on history to explore and unfold America’s Founding as well as other key components of her history
- address the strength of or the need to return to free enterprise within the borders of the United States and fair trade abroad, which defend America’s sovereign rights and the sovereign rights of other nations.
- write out of the perspective of any Judeo-Christian faith in defense of the great moral principles of that perspective and their application to government, law, politics, economics, culture, history, marriage, the family, and daily living
- discuss the contributions of any one of the various Christian faiths (or of Christianity collectively) to the march of freedom
- promote faith in God the Father and Jesus Christ
- defend the unique perspective or contribution of any Judeo-Christian denomination within the general mission of this website but which do so without attacking other churches (excepting those that embrace liberation theology or some other socialist, tyranny promoting, immorality promoting, anarchy endorsing “faith” – and yet, if we had our preference, we would still prefer that such attacks focus on principles not individuals or organizations)
- encourage fellow Christians, rabbis, or pastors to join us in the freedom fight
- oppose the United Nations and its regional surrogates and exposes its machinations
- oppose the idea of American Empire but rather prefer a free, strong, and moral America leading the world by example (not coercion)
- oppose socialism in all its forms (including fascism, corporatism, state monopoly capitalism, Fabianism, compassionate conservatism, The Third Way, futurism, progressivism, liberation theology, communism, internationalism (such as manifest in the United Nations and its surrogates and its Wilsonian Politics), center/right politics, center/left politics, Democratic Socialism, modern liberalism, and so forth)
- oppose anarchy, a necessary prelude to tyranny
- oppose a return to the anarchy a formula for disaster known as the Articles of Confederation or any other similar break-up of the Union and abandonment of its inspired Constitution
- support private education and homeschooling
- support public education in the early American model of locally administered, locally funded, parent controlled schools as another possible alternative, wherein corruption, when and where it exists, can with greater ease be quickly and effectively checked
- favor the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education, all other federal educational agencies, and any federal education funding to state or local school districts.
- favor the abolition of all the unconstitutional ABC regulatory agencies such as the EPA, DOE, OSHA, FCC, etc., and their state look-a-likes which violate the separation of powers doctrine in the Constitution, as well as the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to a trial before an impartial jury, the right to face one’s accusers, etc,. and which would favor, also, the return of all legal claims against commerce to the traditional courts, except as intended in the Constitution to resolve interstate disputes such as water rights on rivers that cross state lines.
- favor state rights especially under the founding idea of federalism wherein the states and the people retain all those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government
- oppose decentralization tactics (such as federal block grants to state, county, and city governments which inevitably will have strings attached, and thus being nothing more than the local administration of national policy rather than true federalism (a reuse, mind you to accomplish the same ends of complete centralization of power), or full sovereignty to the states and the people over those powers where power has not been delegated through constitutional and republican means)
- defend a restoration of the marvelous checks and balances found in the Constitution, yes, the gridlock the Founders intentionally and ingeniously provided, and the separation of powers doctrine
- favor the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would return the election of Senators to their respective state legislatures, re-empowering this powerful check in favor of state rights, and also, as the Founders put it in the Constitutional debates, in favor of the most powerful check in the Constitution against “leveling” or forced “redistribution of the wealth schemes”, and would act also act as one of the truest campaign-finance reforms ever (which, again, is a hat-tip to the Founders wisdom, who by design gave us mixed forms of representation, in part, for that very reason.
- likewise favor a return to the original intent of the Founders regarding the electoral college, that is that the focus in the states is on electing men of settled integrity and wisdom as the electors, who would then be the ones soliciting and reading information from the various candidates for President, and then casting their votes as they choose, not according to party, but according to character, wisdom, and experience (yet another campaign-finance reform measure, for the electoral college also requires their election to this office for only that period in which they will cast their vote, making it far more difficult to corrupt the election process – again by intentional design to that end. One can imagine if this were truly in place, their would come a swift end to sound bite election commercials, but rather lead to candidates providing solid and well detailed position statements to solid and well reasoned electors to weigh)
- favor the role back of executive power to being the chief executive of the laws made by Congress
- favor the restoration of the power to declare war to Congress only, as per the Constitution
- favor the elimination of fast track trade authority for the President, and that unconstitutional maneuver which permitted the renaming of treaties to something new: “trade arrangements”, and by so doing ignored the constitutional provision which demands a 2/3rds vote in the U.S. Senate for approval
- favor the elimination of the power of the Judiciary branch to legislate
- favor reducing the application of court rulings to the unique case at hand only, while the root principle of law of the case at hand remains as it always has been, fixed
- favor the empowerment of Congress to assert its constitutional authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court/Federal Courts
- are not blind partisan ‘Republicans can do no wrong’ and ‘Democrats can do no right’ pieces, but are principle-centered columns, which expose fraud, hypocrisy, false, and wrong-headed ideas or legislation in either party or any of the “third” parties; and which are principle centered in yet other ways, I mean in avoiding character attacks, and also in encouraging positive, principle centered solutions.
- favor the understanding the Founders had of the religion clause in the First Amendment, that is that “Congress will make NO LAW … prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and this not to check religion, but rather to let it flourish – and to what end? To that end, as Jefferson put it, that “the cream may rise to the top” of its own accord, and that the morality of the people will be all the more encouraged among the people (religion and morality being two different things in the Founders mind), so that we might be a people fit to self-govern, rather than a people that self-govern unto destruction, so that respect might the more be given to the laws of the land, so that the caliber of men to public office might be of the highest character possible, so that in times of political corruption that the people might feel that same intensity of righteous indignation that inspires them to appeal to a Higher Source as a mode of protection, so that the republic might be soundly founded upon bedrock principles of Higher Law, leading to the long success of liberty and self-government, rather than founding the republic upon upon the shifting sands of moral relativism, which is precisely what the socialist revolutionaries of the world are hoping for
- favor the prominence of the Family as the fundamental unit of society, or as Blackstone put it, not just the fundamental unit, but the first government upon the earth; which understand that the family is the transmission belt of yesterdays values to today, of today’s values to tomorrow, and so on (and that again, understand that this is why the Marxists of the world, dating back at least to the insights found in Plato’s Republic, have targeted the family for restructuring or preferably elimination, coupled with state parenting – that is, during the revolutionary phases of their overall plans); which favor marriage between a man and woman as the foundation of that family life; and which favor the Biblical injunction that parents (not the state) as shouldering the primary responsibility for the education of THEIR children
- favor freedom of speech, press, and religion (for all citizens, government officials included) to defend such moral, religious, and family values by persuasion, not through positive law, both in private and public.
- favor Bastiat’s position that the state ought to possess only the powers to impose negative law (defined by Bastiat as mere justice, or the power of the state to inflict punishment and/or fines for the violation of the rights of others), which thus limits the power and especially the intrusiveness of the state, and never possesses the powers of positive law, or the compelling of men to do good (or socialism, though Bastiat understood that what socialism defined as good, and compelled men to do as good, was anything but good when reasoned to the root), which opens the door to limitless government, for once one individual, group, or enterprise receives state aid, why not then another, and another, and another?
- favor, as did many of the American Founders, a few limited and notable exceptions to this rule, not socialistic wealth transfer or leveling exceptions, but support for some laws that do have positive aims rather than merely serving justice, such as those that uphold the establishment of an army and navy and a well trained and ready militia as a security against the encouragement of an attack from our enemies, or those which encouraged positive and friendly relations with the Indians (to include the establishment of schools and the free teaching [not forced teaching] of Christianity among them), or those laws which permitted federal funding for posts roads and canals, etc., with the aim to better facilitate free commerce and communication between the states and the people [definitely a positive good], or for securing patents and a national repository for securing those patents (to encourage the positive good of the advancement of science, and inventions, etc., as the Founders put it, and the rewarding of those who sacrifice to bring this about) ; but also the Founders accepting of the possibility of positive laws on more local levels of government (as reflected in the education point stated above), where the Founders understood the great mass of the law ought to exist like those supporting the erection of schools and the means of education, or as the Founders put it in the Northwest Ordinance, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged,”, and other services that the locals deem good and wise. And yet, note, these power remained in the states and the people, and considering the size of our states today as compared with in the Founders day, such a power would be more wisely lodged on the most local levels of government, if that is the decision of particular communities, while meanwhile , all impediments possible should be removed that check the proliferation of private alternatives, and home schools (especially in this high-tech era).
- utilize solid moral reasoning to defend or promote the political, economic, and moral underpinnings of the American Republic, such as the following from Benjamin Franklin as regarding his opposition to welfare schemes, even on the local level, which was in fact the sort Franklin was addressing. Wrote Ben Franklin: “To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the deity; it is godlike. [But, he added,] if we provide encouragement for laziness, and support for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance?”
These are but examples (feel free to come up with your own) of what might fit in or compliment our work at The Moral Liberal and send us your ideas and work!
As to controversial issues raised in any column, please back up your claims with solid reasoning, documented facts, or both.
Volunteer editors, secretaries, webmasters, webdesigners, publicists, etc., are also welcome and invited to please contact Steve Farrell regarding your interest.
We are also looking for bloggers who feel their beliefs, political and moral, are generally consistent with ours. The writing standard for participating in our blog is not as high. Just contact me, send me a link to your current blogging work, I’ll take a look see, and if you can write an English sentence, show signs of a decent grasp on the subject area of our sight, and have the ability to reason soundly, and communicate respectfully with others, you will more than likely be invited to blog with us. and we’d be grateful to have you on board.
Contact me at [email protected]
My personal best to you. I look forward to reading your work or laboring beside in this great work, I believe, the Lord God’s work, of keeping America free.
Founder/Editor In Chief
Note 1: All writers who become regulars receive free advertising for their books, projects, speaking engagements, etc., as our thank you.
Note 2. More on our Syndications:
A. The Moral Liberal is nationally syndicated through America’s #1 Rated authoritative content provider, NewsTex. Newstex provides “trusted” content to folks like Lexis-Nexis, Thompson Reuters, CQ Roll Call, Quote Media, Amazon Kindle, Business Wire, Market Wire, PR Newswire, Newsy, Canadian Newswire, who in turn sell their services to America’s Universities, Businesses, and Research Facilities. We feel honored to have been invited to participate. If you are selected to write for us, you will have an inside track on influencing the rising generation, noting that college and university students are generally forbidden to use traditional Internet for their homework assignments, reports, and term papers.
B. We are also syndicated on the traditional Internet by Google News which not only pulls your articles into the search results for those who have set up Google News feeds on their sites and in their readers, but it also gives you an extra push in Google Search results – placing an attractive and attention getting newsbox into the results, helping your article stand out from the crowd.