Who can be against progress after all? But it's a fraudulent use of the word - because for the Progressive progress is marked not be how free you are but how much government can 'do' for you.

If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

Of all tasks of government the most basic is to protect its citizens against violence.

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

Just think of what Woodrow Wilson stood for: he stood for world government. He wanted an early United Nations League of Nations. But it was the conservatives Republicans that stood up against him.

All government of course is against liberty.

There are many people who feel that it is useless and futile to continue talking about peace and non-violence against a government whose only reply is savage attacks on an unarmed and defenceless people.

Potentially a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.