John Adams on the Feudal and Canon Law

“I always consider the settlement of America with Reverence and Wonder– as the Opening of a grand scene and Design in Providence, for the Illumination of the Ignorant and the Emancipation of the slavish Part of Mankind all over the Earth.”    — John Adams

Detail of John Adams by John Singleton Copley, ca. 1784.

Detail of John Adams by John Singleton Copley, ca. 1784.

John Adams of Braintree, Massachusetts was an American Revolutionary War leader and one of our greatest and most learned Founding Fathers. In 1765, at the age of 29 he wrote an amazing essay, which later came to be called “A Disserta- tion on Canon and Feudal Law,” and which was subsequently published in the Boston Gazette as well as the London Chronicle. It contains one of the great tributes to our Pilgrim and Puritan forefathers. Later in life Adams said of the piece that “It might have been called an Essay upon Forefathers Rock,” referring to the famous rock where the Pilgrims first came ashore.

I am working on a history of the Pilgrims , which I had hoped to have had done by Thanksgiving. It is proving to be far more complicated and time consuming than I first thought. In the meantime, I offer this essay by Adams.

I apologize if Adams’ essay offends anyone. I do not publish it here as an attack on anyone’s faith. Adams certainly was rough in his views towards the Catholic structure here, but a fair view of history reveals many horrible abuses by the Church of Rome. Adams had no love for the Episcopal Church of England either, which in many ways replaced the old abuses from Rome with its own. The bloody history of Canon Law and religion in Europe is the reason we Americans treasure our first Amendment to our Constitution, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” By the way, in case any of you were wondering, I was raised in the Catholic faith.

Below is the actual draft of Adams’ essay, the one found in his diary, courtesy of:


“A Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law” by John Adams

The Desire of Power, Dominion, that encroaching, grasping, restless, and ungovernable Principle in human Nature, that Principle which has made so much Havock and Desolation, among the Works of God, in all the Variety of systems, that have been invented, for its Gratification, was never so successfull, as in the Invention and Establishment of the Cannon and the Feudal Law. — By the former the most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing Constitution of Policy, that was ever conceived by the Human Mind, was framed, by the Romish Clergy, for the Aggrandisement of their own order. This Constitution will be allowed to deserve all the Epithets I have given it, when it is considered, that they found Ways to make the World believe that God had entrusted them with Keys of Heaven whose Gates they might open and shut at Pleasure, and with the Power of Dispensation over all the Rules and Types of Morality, the Power of licensing all sorts both of sins and Crimes, with the Power of Deposing Princes, and absolving all their subjects from their Subj Allegiance, with the Power of Procuring or withholding the Rain of Heaven, and the Beams of the Sun, with the Power of Earthquakes, Plagues, Pestilence, Famine; nay with the Power of creating Blood Nay the Blood of God out of Wine, and Flesh the Flesh of God out of Bread. Thus was human Nature held for Ages, fast Bound in servitude, in a cruel, shameful, deplorable Bondage to him and his subordinate Tyrants who it was fortold in the Apocalypse, would exalt himself above all that is called God and that is worshiped.

By the latter another system was formed similar to the former in some Respects, and altho it was originally contrived perhaps for the necessary Defence of a barbarous Nation People against the Inroads and Invasions of her neighbouring Nations; yet it was soon adopted by almost all the Princes in Europe, and wrought into the Constitution of their Governments for the same Purposes of Tyranny, Cruelty and Lust. This Constitution was originally a Code of Laws for a vast Army, in a perpetual Encampment. The General was invested with the Property of all the Land within [sentence unfinished]

Illustration from John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, first published in 1563; Simson was a Protestant Minister tortured for heresy during the reign of Queen Mary I (1553-58); later he was burnt at Smithfield.

Illustration from John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, first published in 1563; Simson was a Protestant Minister tortured for heresy during the reign of Queen Mary I (1553-58); later he was burnt at Smithfield.

It was a Resolution formed by a sensible People almost in despair. [The Puritans’ decision to leave England and settle in America.] (The) Puritans had become intelligent in general, and some of them learned but they had been galled, and fretted, and whipped and cropped, and hanged and burned. In short they had been so worried by Plagues and Tortures in every Shape, and they utterly despaired of Deliverance from these Miseries in their own Country, that they at last resolved to fly to the Wilderness, for Refuge from the temporal and spiritual Principalities and Powers, and Plagues and scourges of their Native Country.

After their Arrival here, they began their settlements and pursued their Plan both of Ecclesiastical and Civil Government in direct Opposition to the Cannon And the feudal systems.

The Landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, December 1620

The Landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, December 1620. Published by Currier & Ives, 1876.

Their first Concern was to preserve and propagate Knowledge. The leading Men among the first Settlers of America, were Men of sense and Learning. And the Clergymen, who came over first, were familiar with the Historians, Orators, Poets and Phylosophers of Greece and Rome, and many of them have left behind them Libraries which are still in Being consisting chiefly of Books, whose Character their great Grand sons can scarcely read.

I always consider the settlement of America with Reverence and Wonder– as the Opening of a grand scene and Design in Providence, for the Illumination of the Ignorant and the Emancipation of the slavish Part of Mankind all over the Earth.

their great grand sons, tho educated at European Universities, can scarcely read. Archbishop King him self, (I think it was, for I say this upon Memory) observed of the Puritans in General, that they were much more intelligent, and better read than the Members of the Church whom he reproaches, and censures very warmly for that Reason.

Provision was early made by Law, that every Town should be accommodated with a grammar school-under a severe Penalty– so that even Negligence of Learning was made a Crime, a Stretch of Wisdom in Policy that was never equalled before nor since unless by the ancient Egyptians who made the Want of Generosity and Humanity a Capital Crime.

But besides the Obligation laid on every Town to provide the means of Learning, a Colledge nay a Number of Colledges were formed very early, and a very early Attention to them from the Legislature, exempted from Military Duties– exemptions from Taxes, and many other Encouragements have taken Place. And in fine We their Posterity, have seen the Fruits and Consequences of the Wisdom and Goodness of our Forefathers. All Ranks and orders of our People, are intelligent, are accomplished– a Native of America, especially of New England, who cannot read and wright is as rare a Phenomenon as a Comet.

Thus accomplished were the first Settlers of these Colonies– and as has been said, Tyranny in every shape, was their Disdain and Abhorrence. No Kind of Fear of Punishment not even of Death itself, in exquisite Torture had been sufficient to conquer that steady, manly, pertinacious Spirit, with which they opposed the Tyrants of those Days in Church and state. And their greatest Concern seems to have been to establish a Government of the Church, more consistent with the scriptures, and a Government of the state more agreable to the Dignity of human Nature, than they had ever seen in Europe. For this purpose They knew that beautiful were the feet &c. But They saw clearly, that of all the ridiculous Nonsense, Delusion, and Frenzy that had ever passed thro the Mind of Man, none had ever been more glaring and extravagant than the Notions of the Cannon Law, of the indellible Character, the perpetual succession, the virtuous and sanctified Effluvia from Episcopal Fingers, and all the rest of that dark Ribaldry which had thrown such a Glare of Mistery, Sanctity, Reverence and Right Reverence, Eminence and Holiness around the Idea of a Priest [sentence unfinished]

The Affordable Care Act – Some Things to Consider

Political pressure has been building around the Affordable Care Act of 2010, sometimes referred to as Obamacare. There is no doubt that this pressure will be applied to the new Republican Congress with the aim of improving our flawed health care system. The Supreme Court will be revisiting the law in 2015 as it has agreed to review lower courts’ rulings in the case of King v. Burwell and other related cases. At the very least, the Court’s ruling on King will have implications for about 5 million people who are receiving federal subsidies for their health insurance under the new law. Some claim that the Court’s decision on King could in effect deal a deathblow to the entire ACA. This remains to be seen.

It’s important to remember that the decision handed down by the Supreme Court on June 28, 2012 was limited in its scope. The Court’s decision did not address the Constitutionality of all elements contained in the Affordable Care Act, but only two elements, the so-called individual mandate and the expansion of Medicaid. The Court was deeply divided in its decision, but ruled 5-4 that the individual mandate was constitutional because it was understood as being within the scope of Congress’ power to tax, although the Court also ruled at the same time that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause did not give Congress authority to implement the individual mandate as argued by Obama Administration lawyers. But the Court found one justification for the individual mandate and that was all that was needed to allow it to stand.

The second provision in question, the “Medicaid expansion” was ruled unconstitutionally coercive by a majority of the Court. As a result, States could not be compelled to participate in the Medicaid expansion provision, effectively allowing states to opt out. But the Court’s ruling against the Obama Administration on the Medicaid expansion provision did not render the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts summarized the Court’s decision:

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.

“As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.”

Except for the Medicaid expansion provision, implementation of the Affordable Care Act was allowed to move forward. Generally speaking, Democrats and Liberals were ecstatic with the Court’s decision, while Republicans and Conservatives were deeply disappointed.

Had only one justice come to a different conclusion, the Affordable Care Act might have had to have been scrapped entirely, or at the very least, the Court would have ordered Congress to rewrite or eliminate the specific provisions in question, namely the individual mandate and the expansion of Medicaid.

What surprised many Americans with divergent views on the ACA was that when the court’s decision was announced it was revealed that Chief Justice Roberts, often viewed as a conservative member of the court, had sided with the more liberal court members, thereby upholding the bulk of the new health care law.

I have heard people who favor the Affordable Care Act say that, because Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative, voted to uphold the law, that the law is therefore bulletproof and there can be no further challenges to it. This is wishful thinking based on false assumptions and flawed reasoning. In fact, I wonder how many of the people guilty of this argument have ever read Judge Robert’s opinion. My guess is not many of them. Let’s have a look at some of the other things Judge Roberts expressed in his official opinion regarding the Court’s decision.

The Chief Justice made it very clear that the questions addressed by the court were specific and limited in nature. At issue was not the entire Affordable Care Act, only the two specific elements previously mentioned:

“Today we resolve constitutional challenges to two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010: the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase a health insurance policy providing a minimum level of coverage; and the Medicaid expansion, which gives funds to the States on the condition that they provide specified health care to all citizens whose income falls below a certain threshold…. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.”

In addition, Chief Justice Roberts made it known that, although he sided with the majority, which had the consequence of upholding ACA for the time being, his decision should not be interpreted as being some sort of tacit approval of the new law:

“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”

And later:

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments.”

That Justice Roberts was not making a judgment in this case on the wisdom of the ACA, its efficacy or the prospects for its success is beyond argument. Those who claim otherwise have either not read his opinion, or have, but prefer inventions that are not true.

Roberts also touched on a political aspect with regard to ACA and national policies in general,

“Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

The Chief Justice was pointing out that the American people may suffer from the negative effects of their own doing when they elect leaders who implement bad policy, but that the Court’s job is to only rule on the Constitutionality of those policies, not whether those policies are wise or good. Roberts indicates that the remedy for policy that is Constitutional, yet poor, is to “throw the bums out.” That is what happened on November 4th.

Hopefully the new Congress will be able to enact health care legislation that is truly bipartisan and that will actually live up to its name without bankrupting health care consumers, the federal government or taxpayers.

In our next post we’ll explore in detail some of the Justices’ reasoning for and against using the Constitution’s Commerce Cause to justify the individual mandate. The varying ideas surrounding this issue have huge implications for individual liberty and the limits of government power. We’ll also touch upon interesting items including the Court’s decision to construe the “penalty” as a tax even though the law does not refer to the penalty as a tax. Does Gruber come to mind?

Frotho Canutus

Note to the Democrat Leadership: Stop Dividing Americans. It’s time to get the country back on track.

Many racist, white, chauvinistic, male, Tea Party types have joined in the vote to send Utah’s Mia Love to Congress. Tim Scott was re-elected to represent South Carolina in the Senate helped by votes from hundreds of thousands of southern white racists (probably closet members of the KKK). Susana Martinez was overwhelmingly reelected governor of New Mexico by anglo-chauvinists. Ben Carson, a world renowned pediatric neurosurgeon apparently has decided to run for President in 2016 as, yikes, a Republican. There must be some mistake. Well there is, but only if you live in an alternative universe where you are gullible enough to let yourself be manipulated by the lies of the Left.

Utah Republican Mia Love - now on her way to Congress.

Utah Republican Mia Love – now on her way to Congress.

The “War on Women,” Republicans-hate-minorities campaign waged by Democrats has been a phony distraction from serious problems like high Black unemployment, stagnant wages, an enormous increase in the federal debt on Obama’s watch, the Un-Affordable Care Act, and the failure of American diplomacy around the world, which has made the world a far more dangerous place than it was just six or seven years ago.

Tim Scott Republican Senator from So. Carolina

Tim Scott Republican Senator from So. Carolina

Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ strategy was to: lie about Republicans, use her Democrat friends in media to spread those lies, change the subject when the Obama Democrats’ policy disasters were exposed, lie again for good measure, act cocky. It didn’t work this time. Why? The results of the Obama Democrats’ governing policies are in and they don’t work. Eventually, real issues will trump phony ones.

Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico

Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico

If the new Republican-controlled Congress sticks to an agenda that focuses on lower taxes, fewer regulations, economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, national security, and international stability, then we can begin to turn this country around. A rising tide in America will lift all boats.

Ben Carson, likely Republican contender for President in 2016

Ben Carson, likely Republican contender for President in 2016

Sure, President Obama has a veto pen. Let him use it. Then we will see once again who the real obstructionists are. No keen observer expects the Prez to compromise much, although he will give speech after interview saying he is trying, but that the rascally Republican majority is just too extreme and unbending. So why won’t Barack Obama compromise for the good of the country? Answer: Even in defeat, arrogance knows no self-reflection; it merely blames others for its failures. If Democrats decide to stop dividing Americans along the lines of things like race, gender, religion, and sexual preference, it probably won’t be for the right reasons; it will be done because it’s a strategy that has relegated them to minority status in Congress and in many statehouses around the country. How ironic. Frotho Canutus

Pendulum: The Will of the People?

Here is a letter that I sent off to a high profile Republican Senator after the 2014 midterm election:

Dear Senator:

Congratulations, you are now part of the majority party in Congress. Thank God. The pendulum has swung back your way. The question is, how long until the pendulum swings back in favor of Democrats. You must be thinking about that.

Why is it that modern Washington politics acts like a pendulum in the first place? I maintain it is because “the people” are confused. They are human beings, who are flawed and easily manipulated for good or ill.

“The very media, founded on communications and automata, especially television, can communicate illusion as well as reality, and that is all right as long as we know the difference.”Dr. William O. Baker, patriot genius and one time leader of Bell Labs.

 All too often the people do not know the difference.

I watched you last night and you invoked the “voice of the people” several times. Stop with that nonsense! The same people you speak of twice elected the disaster we have in the White House.

In 1787, one of our greatest Americans, John Adams wrote that “Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.” I maintain the people are like children. They do not understand freedom. Many of the founding fathers were skeptical of pure democracy. Rightly so. It is possible for citizens in a democracy to vote themselves into servitude. To some extent we have already done so in America. It’s time our leaders reverse this trend. That is your job now. Your ideas are mostly right. You must find a way to bring “the people” along.

The end is good government. Good government can only be achieved when there is piety, virtue. Good government only exists where there is frugality and the rule of law and where justice is applied equally regardless of stature. You must constantly remind the people of this. The revolution at hand, if that’s what it is, will hopefully result in a return to these principles. That would be something. Or is it only a matter of time until the pendulum swings back? Then where will we be?


Frotho Canutus

John Adams by Copley

John Adams by Copley

“If there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?” –John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

“Human government is more or less perfect as it approaches nearer or diverges farther from the imitation of this perfect plan of divine and moral government.” –John Adams, draft of a Newspaper Communication, 1770

“Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the “latent spark”… If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?” –John Adams, the Novanglus, 1775

“Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.” –John Adams, Defense of the Constitutions, 1787

“Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” –John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.” –John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” –John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

“I have accepted a seat in the [Massachusetts] House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and the ruin of our children. I give you this warning, that you may prepare your mind for your fate.” –John Adams, to Abigail Adams, May 1770

“I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.” –John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1780

“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.” –John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

“I have long thought the Philosophers of the eighteenth Century and almost all the Men of Science and Letters, crack. In my youth I was much amused with the Idea that this Globe of Earth was the Bedlam* of the Universe. If I were now to judge it by the Conduct and Writings of the Men of Science, I should be more disposed than ever to believe that the Sun, Moon and Stars send all their Lunaticks here for confinement, as they used to send them from Paris to Bicetre.”

*insane asylum

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.” –John Adams, letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818

“As long as Property exists, it will accumulate in Individuals and Families. As long as Marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families.” –John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” –John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make good use of it! If you do not, I shall repent it in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it!” – John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 26, 1777

Liberal New Mexico Newspaper Endorses Republican Susana Martinez for Governor.

The Santa Fe New Mexican has endorsed Republican incumbent Governor Susana Martinez over her Democrat challenger. The editorial department at the capital city’s oldest newspaper, which solidly favors Democrats and liberal/progressive policies, must have been, in words they used, “between a rock and a hard place.” If you can imagine the New York Times endorsing Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in 2012, well it’s just about the same thing. I suspect this will not help their circulation.

Link to the New Mexican’s tortured endorsement here.


Voter Fraud in New Mexico – time to get serious!

KOB News 4 has reported on the first alleged case of voter fraud in New Mexico in this election cycle.  A link to the report as well as a link to another infamous case of New Mexican campaign misconduct can be found at the end of this post.

Voter fraud is a terrible crime and it goes on a lot more than we are able to detect. There will be a tipping point if voter fraud is left unchecked, which could easily lead to civil unrest or even anarchy. At that point our democracy might be lost forever. We have a sacred obligation not to let that happen. There is no question that some policies tend to increase voter fraud, while other policies tend to decrease it.  I have a couple of ideas that, if implemented, may help to minimize voter fraud.

Some leaders and political pundits want to pretend the problem of voter fraud does not even exist. But Project Veritas recently went to North Carolina where there is a hotly contested Senate race and caught numerous campaign workers on video telling an undercover “voter”  that it is OK to cast a vote illegally, even encouraging them to do so. U.S. Representative Jim Moran’s son had to resign as field director of his father’s 2012 campaign for advising a person how to commit voter fraud. This was also caught on video tape. Moran is a Democrat from Northern Virginia. We would be naïve to think that New Mexico is immune to the cancer of voter fraud.



One idea to combat voter fraud in NM is to mandate that the State Attorney General’s Office run commercials during each election season warning TV viewers and other media consumers that if they are caught committing voter fraud, they will be prosecuted and may spend time in jail. Another idea is to have Voter Fraud Warning Signs with a similar message prominently displayed in all our polling places, if we do not do that already.

Would these two mandates require legislative action at the State level in New Mexico? I would like to hear from you about ideas you might have to minimize voter fraud.

Our current Secretary of State in NM, Dianna Duran, appears to take voter fraud very seriously, her opponent tends to favor policies that will make voter fraud easier to commit and harder to detect. If you care about minimizing voter fraud, we have a better chance if we re-elect Dianna Duran. Write your leaders and tell them they must begin getting serious about voter fraud. Don’t let up.


Watch the KOB News 4 report by clicking here.

It was only two years ago that KOB caught campaign workers in Espanola bribing undercover “voters” with alcohol. See the  KOB News 4 report by clicking here.

See the Secretary of the State of New Mexico’s August 2014 Press Release on Compliance with National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by clicking here.

Ebola: Canada Suspends Issuance of Visas

In a move that seems prudent to me, Canada has announced that it will not issue visas to residents from countries with widespread Ebola. Of course, this has displeased many pointy-headed technocrats and academics like a guy named Fidler at Indiana University who says the move violates International Health Regulations. What this guy and others like him are saying is that Canada’s authorities do not have the right to make decisions they feel are necessary to protect their own people. People who do not live in Canada, like Mr. Fidler, should be able to make those decisions because they are wiser, smarter, more enlightened – whatever. Dear Canada – you are not fit to govern yourselves – you must surrender your authority to the world’s technocrats! President Obama is surely displeased with Canada’s decision as well since it contradicts his approach to stopping the spread of Ebola.

See the report on Canada’s Ebola policy here and make up your own mind .