Wednesday, December 26, 2012

PUT ARMED FEDERAL POLICE IN EVERY SCHOOL! (oh dear. . . .)

Have you heard?


 NRA's Executive Vice-president, Wayne LaPoop LaPierre, has started to loudly proclaim some insanity.  He stated that “While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.”

Until now that is.  (Of course, LaPierre, would NEVER think of exploiting ANYTHING for "political gain" now, would he!?)

He starts out with this:

Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.
And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.
OK.  I see that logic. And I agree with it. The Federal Government should have never gotten its nose in the middle of whether or not American Citizens can own ANY kind of gun/rifle/bayonet/etc.  It was rightly recognized and declared by our Founding Fathers that GOD has given us that RIGHT.  So for the Federal Government to impose rules that say we can't port guns into "X" place, is not only against our rights, and against the Constitution/Bill of Rights that protects our rights, but is most definitely telling the criminal class of folks exactly where they can strike the easiest.  Got it.  Agreed.

But then LaPierre uses one of the devil's best tools when he takes a huge lie and enshrouds it with a bit of truth then feeds it to us unwitting citizens.

So let's see if we can look at the psychology and enshroudedness (yes, I just made that word up) of this.

LaPierre takes a supposed 'jab' at the Federal Government (thereby making those unwitting citizens (aka: people unaware of the full facts) *feel* like he's on the citizen's side) by siting that the Gov't places armed guards everywhere else (such as banks, stadiums, airports, etc.) ... “Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society (not it's WE who are guilty, not just the Fed. Gov't) leave them utterly defenseless, (Ack! Shock attack! "UTTER" defenseless! and ONLY the Federal Gov't can SAVE US!)  and the monsters and predators (no longer "just" criminals, now they have risen to the level of of childhood fears, "monsters", and to the level of our human instincts worst enemy, "predators")  of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!”

NOW!  Did you hear that?  NOW!  There's NO time to discuss this.... it's URGENT!  NOW!  (hurry, before any half-way intelligent citizen wakes up and realizes what we're doing! We can't take that chance!)

 Next, he asks and answers his own question, 'How?', by stating:
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?”

Well - OF COURSE we'd rather have someone there immediately, rather than wait even HALF a minute!

But is that the only option we have? To bring in FEDERAL Gov't armed police?  (That means the Federal Gov't will need to have police first.  Oops, Obama arleady took care of that, silly me.)  No, that is not the only option we have.  Here's a better option:  allow the citizens (teachers, principals, parents, volunteers, friends, neighbors across the street, etc.) to own and carry UNCONCEALED weapons.  In fact, that is the perfect solution. If all citizens recognized this God-given right for what it is, and understood how it PROTECTS us, then we'd all have our weapons and we'd all be able to help each other by protecting each other.  I can practically guarantee you that crime would eventually go down to almost nill, if 99% of the citizenry had weapons and knew how to use them.  THAT is what has always kept our nation not only safe for the majority, but FREE.  Our first freedom protected is that of religion - to believe as we wish, to practice as we wish and wherever we wish, without any Federal Gov't interference, and our second freedom protected is that of owning weapons.

It is a fact that the first thing any dictator needs to do to get the people "under thumb" is to take away their weapons.  Throughout the history of the world it has been so.

So here we have LaPierre suggesting that, not the parents or teachers, but the Federal Government bring in armed Federal Police.  I'll try to be very clear with what I'm about to say here:  THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ARMED *FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICE* IN THE SCHOOLS TO SUPPOSEDLY "PROTECT" OUR INNOCENT CHILDREN, PLAYS RIGHT INTO BARACK OBAMA'S PLAN FOR AMERICA TO HAVE A FEDERAL POLICE FORCE TO KEEP US ALL IN-LINE, AND TO *NOT* HAVE ANY CITIZENS BE THE ONES HOLDING THE WEAPONS.

Now, what's wrong with that picture?

1.- Our citizenry has the right to own weapons, and carry them openly, without being questioned or maligned.
2.- Because of religion and morality being kicked out of our society (that's a WHOLE 'nother topic for another day!), we are left with two generations of adults and quasi-adults and now a third generation of teens/youth who do not value life, respecting others/elders, and who are filled with rage and violence and with no clear internal moral compass by which to stear their 'ship'.
3.- The Federal Government has made it very clear as of late (in the past it was always "incognito") that they wish to control every aspect of our lives from what our children eat at school, to how much we weigh, to whether or not we should suffer the natural consequences to our own actions, to having a "license" for everything from holding a garage sale to driving a car to being a lawyer, to what kind and how much electricity we use, and the list goes on, covering just about everything in our daily lives. 
4.- Now we have the Vice-president of the NRA, crying out for MORE interference by the Federal Government, using words like "monster," "innocent," "NOW," etc. in order to make it *feel* like a good thing.  Notice I said *feel* twice now.  That's because in order for these people to get anything done in this nation they know that all they need to do is appeal to your EMOTIONS, rather than you inellect or logic, and voilĂ ! It gets done.
5.- Meanwhile, let's leave the populace without any weapons.  The Government will do it all for us. They will protect us. They will determine when we should be born and how, when we should die and how, and whether we should be safe and how.





NO, THANK YOU.   I rather suffer through the good or bad consequences of my personal choices, rather than sit back and allow the Federal Government (or state or local for that matter) take over every aspect of my liberty to the point where I am no longer free. 

HERE is a great article on this particular story, and HERE is another article that discusses the Founder's warning about disarming the Citizenry.

Enjoy taking it all in and pondering it deeply.  Your liberties and your children's liberties depend on it.

NORTH KOREAN ROCKET: CAN HIT U.S. MAINLAND



It should have been a loud wakeup call in December when North Korea successfully launched a three-stage rocket delivering a payload in orbit around the globe. This event established North Korea's credentials as having intercontinental ballistic missile technology. On December 23, North Korean officials announced that an analysis of the debris from the rocket shows it has the ability to reach the U.S. mainland. 

Read Article HERE.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

ALL MEN ARE CREATED "EQUAL" . . . . OR ARE THEY?

As the 2012 presidential elections are in full swing, we hear "President" Obama continuously spit out such words as "middle class", "fair", "equal", etc.   The main idea he's trying to get across to those who don't know true history and what the meaning of "equal rights" is all about, is that all of us should not only have equal rights but that somehow that translates into equal things.  Therefore, he believes it's "the right thing to do" to take money from the wealthy and redistribute it "equally" to the members of society that are not making $250K/year.

But what did the Founding Fathers (and all ancient and wise Philosophers from whom they drew their wisdom, as well as the Bible) say was "fair" or "equal rights"?  The Founders wrote the Constitution and we need to understand what THEY meant, in order to understand what "equal rights" truly means.  

So here is your "equal rights" civics lesson for the day.  The text comes from the book The 5,000 Year Leap by Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, pages 103-112. Dr. Skousen spent over 40 years doing in-depth research to find out exactly what it is that the Founders really wrote when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. His research came mainly from first hand accounts, documents, and writings by the Founders themselves.  So it's pretty much indisputable and authentic, and can be researched by anyone wishing to verify the information.




The 6th Principle of Freedom is:
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL

What does that mean?

The Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that some truths are self-evident, and one of these is the fact that all men are created equal.

Yet everyone knows that no two human beings are exactly alike in any respect.  They are different when they are born. They plainly exhibit different natural skills.  They acquire different tastes.  They develop along different lines.  They vary in physical strength, mental capacity, emotional stability, inherited social status, in their opportunities for self-fulfillment, and in scores of other ways.  Then how can they be equal?

The answer is, they can't, except in three ways:  They can only be TREATED as equals

1.)  in the sight of God,
2.)  in the sight of the law, and
3.)  in the protection of their rights.

In these three ways all men are created equal. It is the task of society, as it is with God, to accept people in all their vast array of individual differences, but treat them as equals when it comes to their role as human beings.  As members of society, all persons should have their equality guaranteed in two areas. Constitutional writer Clarence Carson describes them:

First, there is equality before the law.  This means that every man's case is tried by the same law governing any particular case.  Practically, it means that there are no different laws for different classes or orders of men [as there were in ancient times].  The definition of premeditated murder is the same for the millionaire as for the tramp.  A corollary of this is that no classes are created or recognized by law. (that includes not "picking out" the "rich" in order to tax them higher than the "poor"!)

Second, the Declaration refers to an equality of rights . . . . Each man is equally entitled to his life with every other man; each man has an equal title to God-given liberties along with every other. (Clarence Carson, The American Tradition [Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1970, pp. 112-13.]

Rousseau's Error

John Adams was in France when Jean Jacques Rousseau was teaching that all men were designed to be equal in every way.  Adams wrote:

That all men are born to equal rights is true.  Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has . . . . But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaringly an imposition on the credulity of the people, as ever was practiced by monks, by Druids, by Brahmins, by priests of the immoral Lama, or by the self-styled philosophers of the French Revolution. (Quoted in Koch, The American Enlightenment, p. 222.)

What it Means to Have Equal "Rights"

The goal of society is to provide "equal justice," which means protecting the rights of the people equally:

- At the bar of justice, to secure their rights.
- At the ballot box, to vote for the candidate of their choice. (how ironic politicians claim to want to protect our equal rights, while performing voter fraud all over the place.)
- At the public school, to obtain their education. (the old-fashioned public school, not the corrupt modern public school)
- At the employment office, to compete for a job.
- At the real estate agency, to purchase or rent a home.
- At the pulpit, to enjoy freedom of religion.
- At the podium, to enjoy freedom of speech.
- At the microphone or before the TV camera, to present views on the issues of the day.
- At the meeting hall, to peaceably assemble.
- At the print shop, to enjoy freedom of the press.
- At the store, to buy the essentials or desirable things of life.
- At the bank, to save and prosper.
- At the tax collector's office, to pay no more than their fair share.
- At the probate court, to pass on to their heirs the fruits of life's labors..

The Problem of Minorities

 Admittedly, equal rights have not been completely established in all of these areas, but the Founders struck a course which has thus far provided a better balance in administering the equality of rights than has occurred at any time in history.  The breakdown occurs in connection with the treatment of minorities.

Minorities in any country consider themselves "outsiders" who want to become "insiders."  As long as they are treated as outsiders they do not feel equal.  The interesting part of it is that every ethnic group in the American society was once a minority. We are a nation of minorities!

There is no spot on the planet earth where so many different ethnic groups have been poured into the same milieu as in the United States.  It was appropriate that America should be called the melting pot of the world.

Two things are especially notable about this.  First of all, it is remarkable that the Founders were able to establish a society of freedom and opportunity which would attract so many millions of immigrants.  Secondly, it is even more remarkable that within two or three generations nearly all of these millions of immigrants became first-class citizens.

As we noted above, newcomers to any nation are not considered first-class citizens immediately. Human nature does not allow it.  In some countries, "outsiders" are still treated with hostility after they have resided in those countries for three or four hundred years.  In the United States, immigrants or outsiders, can become insiders much more rapidly.  Nevertheless, the transition is painful.




Crossing the Culture Gap

Being a minority, even in the United States, is painful because acceptance depends on crossing the culture gap.  This means learning the English language - with an American dialect more or less;  attaining the general norm of education - which in America is fairly high; becoming economically independent - which often means getting out of the ghetto and becoming recognized as a social asset to the community - which always takes time.  Usually it requires far more time than the minority group can patiently endure.

But the impatience of a minority can be an advantage.  It expedites their assimilation by motivating greater effort to gain acceptance.  In the United States, as a result, many members of a minority group are assimilated in a single generation. Others must wait until the second generation, and a few are still struggling in the third.  But these are the exceptions.  They can't quite get across the culture gap.  It is a fact of life in America, as everywhere else, that no ethnic group is going to be entirely comfortable or treated completely as equals in an adopted society until they have crossed the culture gap.

A Nation of Minorities

As mentioned above, there is not a single ethnic group in the United States but what has been treated at one time or another as a minority, or less than first-class citizens.

The story of minorities in the United States is a fascinating tale. Beginning with the French in the 1500s and the English in the 1600s (and the Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Scots, an Irish in between), it was one grand conglomerate of tension, discrimination, malice, and sometimes outright persecution.  But the miracle of it all is the fact that they fought side by side for freedom in the Revolutionary War, and all of them could boast of descendants in the White House or the Congress as the years passed by.  So all of this became America - a nation of minorities.

The Japanese and Chinese

One of the best examples of minority adjustment under adverse circumstances is the American saga of the Japanses and Chinese.

The treatment they received is an embarrassment to modern Americans.  They were not only shabbily treated, but sometimes they were treated brutally. (In certain situations this happened to other minorities as well.)  But practically none of the Japanese and Chinese went home.  They became domestics, field workers, and truck farmers; they ran laundries, worked for a pittance on railroads, ate their simple fare, and slept on bare boards.  Meanwhile, they sent their children to school and endured their mistreatment with patience.  By 1940 the Chinese were virtually assimilated and the Japanese had almost made it.  Then came the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Within weeks the vast Japanese population in California had been hauled off to concentration camps in the Rocky Mountains.  J. Edgar Hoover knew there were practically no espionage agents among them. The few security risks had already been identified and incarcerated. He vigorously protested the Japanese evacuation and so did many others, but all to no avail.

The Japanese could have been very bitter, but to the ultimate embarrassment and chagrin of those who had engineered this fiasco, they loyally mobilized their sons and sent them into the American armed services as volunteers!  Japanese-American regiments were among the military ranks under suspicion and resentment, but they came out in hero roles.  A few years later the entire State of California was represented in the Senate by a Japanese-American.

The Black Minority

But of all the minorities in America, the black have undertaken assimilation as first-class citizens under the greatest number of handicaps.  Many early political leaders of the United States, including Abraham Lincoln, were fearful the blacks might never achieve complete adjustment because of the slavery culture in which the first few generations were raised.

Nevertheless, freedom and education brought a whole new horizon of hope to the blacks within three generations.  Tens of thousands of them hurdled the culture gap, and soon the blacks in other countries saw their ethnic cousins in the United States enjoying a higher standard of living than blacks in any part of the world. In fact, by 1970 a black high school student in Alabama or Mississippi had a better opportunity to get a college education than a white student in England.

Providing equality for the blacks has never been approached with any degree of consensus.  Some felt that with education and job opportunities the blacks could leap the culture gap just as other minorities had done. Others felt they should be made the beneficiaries of substantial government gratuities.  Experience soon demonstrated, however, that government gratuities are as corrupting and debilitating to blacks as they are to the Indians or any other minorities.  The blacks themselves asked for equal opportunity at the hiring hall.  Thus, the trend began to shift in the direction which no doubt the Founders such as Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin would have strongly approved.

Violence Proves Counter-Productive

In the mid-sixties there were groups of Marxist agitators who moved in among the blacks to promote direct action by violence.  One of these was Eldridge Cleaver, who had been trained in Marxist philosophy and tactics while serving a fifteen-year sentence in a California state penitentiary.  In 1967 he became the Minister of Information for the Black Panthers.  In his books, Eldridge Cleave describes the rationale behind their philosophy of violence.  It was to destroy the whole economic and social structure of the United States so that blacks could enjoy equal rights under an American Communist regime.  The crescendo of violence increased year after year.  During the summer of 1968 over a hundred American cities were burning.  But the burning was always in black ghettos.  The idea was to put the blacks in direct confrontation with the police and state militia in order to solidify their apparent need to become a racial bloc for the coming revolution.

But the burning and fire-bombing backfired.  The black population began to realize it was only the homes of blacks that were being burned.  Other than police, it was primarily blacks that were being hurt in the melee of the riots.  In the shoot-outs with the police, nineteen of the Black Panther leaders were killed.  Eldridge Cleaver was wounded.  He and his wife later fled to Cuba and then to other Communist countries.

The whole scenario of violence had proved tragically counter-productive.  It temporarily jolted out of joint a broad spectrum of reforms which the blacks were really seeking and the rest of the nation was trying to provide.



A Dissident Returns

After nearly eight years as an exile in Communist and Socialist countries, Eldridge Cleaver asked to be allowed to return to the United States and pay whatever penalty was due on charges pending against him.  He and his wife were no longer atheists.  They were no longer Communists.  Those bitter years behind the iron and bamboo curtains had dispelled all the propaganda concerning "equality" and "justice" under Communism.  Cleaver told the press:  "I would rather be in jail in America than free anywhere else."  He then went on to say:

I was wrong and the Black Panthers were wrong. . . We [black Americans] are inside the system and I feel that the number one objective for Black America is to recognize that they have the same equal rights under the Constitution as Ford or Rockefeller, even if we have no blue-chip stocks.  But our membership in the United States is the supreme blue-chip stock and the one we have to exercise. (Laile Bartlett, "The Education of Eldridge Cleaver," Reader's Digest, Sept. 1976, pp. 65-72.)

By 1981 Eldridge Cleaver had paid his final debt to society.  No further charges were pending against him.  Although he had been involved in a police shoot-out in Oakland, California, he had not been accused of causing any deaths.  In fact, it was in the Oakland shoot-out that he was wounded.  As he was released on parole, the judge required that he finish his obligation to society by putting in several hundred hours of public service at a California college.

Soon after that he began accepting speaking engagements before schools, churches, community gatherings, and even prison groups to describe his new and yet profound appreciation for America.  He described the despondency which came over him when he found what a betrayal of human rights and human dignity Communism turned out to be.  He described the long and strenuous intellectual struggle with his Marxist atheism before he recognized its fraudulent fallacies. He frankly and patiently dialogued with university students still struggling with similar philosophical problems.  He assured them, as Locke had done, that a persistent pursuit of the truth would bring them to the threshold of reality, where the Creator could be recognized and thereafter have a place in their lives.

The Eldridge Cleaver story is simply the account of a prodigal American who found himself and returned home.



Constitutional Amendments to Insure Equal Rights

After the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1789, Americans added four amendments to make certain that everyone, including racial minorities, could enjoy equal rights.  These amendments are as follows:

13th:  The Thirteenth Amendment to provide universal freedom
14th:  The Fourteenth Amendment to provide universal rights of citizenship
15th/19th:  The Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to provide universal voting rights regardless of race, color, or sex.

The Founders distinguished between equal rights and other areas where equality is impossible.  They recognized that society should seek to provide equal opportunity but not expect equal results;  provide equal freedom but not expect equal capacity;  provide equal rights but not equal possessions;  provide equal protection but not equal status;  provide equal educational opportunities but not equal grades.

They knew that even if governmental compulsion were used to force its citizens to appear equal in material circumstances, they would immediately become unequal the instant their freedom was restored to them.  As Alexander Hamilton said:

Inequality would exist as long as liberty existed . . . . It would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself. (Harold C. Syrett et al., eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 19 vols. by 1973 [New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-   ], 4:218)

Nevertheless, there are some who insist that people do not have equal rights unless they have "equal things."  The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with this proposition and set forth their belief concerning it in the next (7th) principle of freedom:  "The Proper Role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, Not Provide Equal Things."  (I'll post about that tomorrow.)

Thursday, August 2, 2012

ADAM SMITH - BULLY AT THE DRIVE-THRU


Did you see this video of University of Arizona adjunct "professor" BULLYING the girl at the drive-thru window of Chick-Fil-A in Tucson, Arizona on August 1, 2012??  It made me so sad and embarrassed for her. It made me so ashamed of him and angry at him. But I have to say to the girl: YOU GO GIRL!  You showed more class in one strand of your hair than Adam showed in his entire being!  I'm sorry you had to deal with that, but I hope and trust that the thousands of people that came through the rest of the day, MADE YOUR DAY HAPPY!  Not all humans are as ignorant as Adam!

Here's the deal:

CFA is a PRIVATE Company in the United States of America.
CFA can do as it pleases, so long as it's lawful.
CFA is the most friendly, Christ-like restaurant EVER!
The President of CFA rightly believes that our nation is shaking its fist at God by trying so hard to accept homosexual marriage as "good".  And he stated his belief on radio. He's FREE to do that without receiving any backlash.
The President of CFA does not impose his private beliefs upon the customers or employees of CFA at all.

THEN.....

The Occuppy Poopers (literally), otherwise known as progressives, get all "offended".  And we all know what progressives do when they are "offended"! OWS gave us a good look.

I know that many of them stand up for LGBT also to make themselves feel better, and as proof they can show the world "Look how politically correct I am!  Look how much I love LGBT people!  Look how I stand up for all the feel-good ignorant ideas that all of you come up with! See?  I'm your frieeeend!"
  Creepy!  Anyway - these progressives tried boycotting CFA and, as their DNA seems to dictate, they are seriously wishing DEATH upon all who eat at CFA, calling them names, cursing at them, and bullying them.

This guy, Adam Smith, is rude and condescending and filled with enmity.  He has no idea what he is incurring upon himself, nor helping to incur upon our nation by doing what he did today.

This is not about gays.  This is about many folks, including major cities!, that want to shut down CFA completely because its president doesn't belief the same way they do. Does that even make any sense in an adult world?  Oh wait.... I forgot... there are very few real adults left in this world.  Most are children in adult bodies, and their behavior and lack of self-control shows it all too often.

So, according to these progressives, if you are a moral, upstanding Christian with integrity, you need to keep all your thoughts and opinions to yourself and you are not free to express them outside the walls of your own home.  THEY can say whatever they want (and they do!), and they can curse at your, defecate on you, kill you, rape you, insult you, and hate you... but YOU cannot do anything, unless you denounce your God, your values, your belief system, your being, and chant right along with them all the "feel good" brainwashing words.

Tell me, progressives, how's all that "SOCIAL JUSTICE" and "INCLUSIVENESS", and "ACCEPTANCE", and "EQUALITY", and COEXISTANCE" and 'TOLERANCE" working for ya???  Eh???  Because I can't see you LIVING it whatsoever, and your ACTIONS are screaming loud in my ear, telling me that you believe in the exact OPPOSITE of each of those!  What hypocrites!

This is what this particular hypocrite looks like:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPLNgkP9nzc
And in case those two links don't work, you can go HERE and read a great article about it and see the duplicate video.

I understand this man is upset.  He has that right.  But this was NOT the way to vent that. Nothing will come of it. If he wants to have an impact, he needs to call or write the president of CFA, or his elected officials, or join the LGBT agenda lobbyists, or something more creative like that, where his 'voice' might have more an impact. But THIS?  This was crap and it served absolutely no other purpose than to stroke his narcissistic pride.  There, feel better now, Adam? Good!

I am HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY that today millions of good folks across the nation, conservative, libertarian, and even progressives and democrats helped to support our FREEDOM OF RELIGION and FREEDOM OF SPEECH in this nation by showing their appreciation for CFA's president to maintain his God-given RIGHT to belief as he chooses, and to say what he believes when asked. AMEN!

Thursday, May 3, 2012

WIRED DIFFERENTLY?

I belong to a couple of political groups on Facebook. One is conservative, one is liberal. I just left the liberal one. It was really dragging me down. And I'm actually kinda sad about leaving the group. Not sad as in I wish I hadn't left it, but sad as in I wish I didn't HAVE to leave it in order to maintain higher ground.

My experiences with both these groups have been polar opposite.  I am a debater by nature, and I love the taboo topics of Religion and Politics. They fascinate me. One of the other things in life that fascinates me is people. I love, love, love to talk and/or debate with people. I love to learn their language, I love to learn their culture, I love to dig into their heads and find out what makes them "them."  Hence I love to figure out what people opine politically and why.

I joined the Conservative group first.  It's not as "far right" as other Conservative groups, and it is open to any person holding liberal, independent, conservative, or "other" political opinions, though most on there would describe themselves as conservatives.  One of the members later joined the liberal group and invited me to join as well.  Which I did.  I joined it knowing that it was open to all political persuasions, and looked forward to getting to know the members.

In the conservative group people to hold to various opinions, and everyone discusses the issues, and shares their opinions and any information they come across in the news/etc..  There is a spirit of sharing, learning, and debate within that group.  In the liberal group from day one I noticed all the sarcastic comments, the innuendos, the jabs, and the "making fun" of others.  Without exaggeration I'd say that 98% of the comments had a rude jab in them.  By "jab" I mean little "cut-downs" such as "all you right-wing-nut jobs", or in speaking of the supposed womanizer that Benjamin Franklin was saying things like "yeah, he likes his women saucy" or "he is rather wonky"..... and a million other "jabs" taken toward anyone who disagreed with them. It wasn't until i began posting, that I started to understand that all but 2 or 3 of the folks on this group were hard-lined "left" leaning socialists.  I do not use that word lightly.  They very literally are FOR socialism and actually believe it's a good thing.  And while that is something I can handle, their continued harsh criticism and contentious spirit really wore down the spirit in the group.  I couldn't help but compare the entire scenario to a group of pigs wallowing in the mud, rolling over and over, happy as a lark to be covered in the mud and be slinging that mud at the other pigs in the pen. I actually got sad, besides just insulted.  Sad because I had hoped to actually debate some people who more strongly disagree with me on issues and historical facts.

Instead, what I got was a whole bunch of contention, rudeness, and pride.  Any person who disagreed with them, they would chide and try to humiliate.  Then there was a group of about 6 folks who tried to belittle and corner me. They began asking questions, seeking answers only to refute them and twist my words.  So I refused to answer those kinds of questions.  Of course, they twisted even that to make it look like I was the one who was trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

But the thing that stood out the most was how this experience seemed to reconfirm to me how the liberals are all about anger, "winning", contention, meanness, and all the other things that they are stereotypically accused of.  While the folks on the conservative group were well behaved, respectful, and would actually engage in debate with a person.   The other thing I noticed is how the liberals love to turn things around, or twist the person's words in order to make whatever argument you offer "fit" their opinion.  I couldn't help but feel like this was kindergarten politics.

The spirit in the liberal group was one of contention.  The spirit in the conservative group was one of comparing opinions and learning from each other.

Now - we've all probably heard of these stereotypes before.  They are spoken of everywhere.  You know, the Tea Party folks who abide the law, had zero arrests during their protests, etc.  Then the Occupy Wall Street folks who defecate on private and public property, rape women, kill people, call others names, and twist things around to suit their own ends.  Well, I actually LIVED that experience.  I actually saw it happen right before my own eyes.  And it made me sad.

Now, I'm not trying to say that ALL conservatives are well mannered and self-controlled, nor that ALL liberals are rude and contentious people.  I readily admit there good and bad in both groups and even in the "other" groups (libertarians, Constitutionalists, Communists, Greens, etc.)  But I am saying that these generalities are not just made up.  They really do exist, and I just saw that happen with my own eyes.

I left the liberal group, and not because I couldn't handle people who disagree with me. I left because I expect the people that disagree with me to be civil about it and to back up their claims with references and sources.  I am staying in the conservative group because they actually are civil and can disagree without being disagreeable, and because I feel I learn something each time I go there, and because I don't come away from the experience with a feeling of stress and contention.

I heard some years ago that liberals and conservatives are just wired differently.  After this experience, I think I'd have to agree for the most part.  When I'd try to explain ANYthing to the liberals, they would simply say "no" and not accept it.  They didn't research it, read it, nothing.  They simply would try to ensnare the conservative view point and ridicule it.  They were there to argue, not debate.  And that made me sad.  (The difference between arguing and debating is the INTENT behind the comments. In debating you wish to civilly discuss/defend opposing views.  In arguing you wish to insult or anger the other person and prove that you are right.)

What have been your experiences in dealing with conservatives and liberals?


Monday, April 30, 2012

THOMAS JEFFERSON'S BELIEF IN JESUS CHRIST

For far too many decades our nation's public education (primary, secondary, and higher education), have drilled it into children's heads, including my own generation's, that Thomas Jefferson was either an atheist, or didn't believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, or something else that makes him unChristian or unBelieving in some way, thereby attempting to lower the thoughts, respect, and admiration of America's citizens for what is most likely the central figure of our nation's founding.

Here I'd like to share quotes by Thomas Jefferson himself.  It is impossible to read these and not come away with the understanding that Thomas Jefferson indeed believed in God, and was a very religious and Christian man.  As well, the reader will appreciate that Jefferson recognized that this nation is a CHRISTIAN NATION, under God, and that our only hope for maintaining our liberties is to continue to serve and love that God, even Jesus Christ.

The source for each quote is given, but I further clarify that I learned of these quotes first from the book The Real Thomas Jefferson by Andrew M. Allison, M. Richard Maxfield, K. DeLynn Cook, and W. Cleon Skousen.

Enjoy, and ponder recommitting yourself to our Maker, that in so doing, we may all band together and pray down the blessings of God upon this faltering nation.


 (meaning kept as in context, and recognizing that in his day referring to Providence or Deity in any way, was referring to Jesus Christ. Sources cited.):


"I shall need . . . the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence, and our riper years with His wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants (elected officials), guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations." -- Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address


"An overruling Providence. . . by all its dispensations, proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter."  --- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address


"I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma that without a revelation there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God . . . On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.  The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses - it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause, and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms.
"We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the universe in its course and order.  Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view; comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets, and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extent; and were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos.
"So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to a unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a Creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe.  Surely this unanimous sentiment renders their more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.  Some early Christians, indeed, have believed in the co-eternal pre-existence of both he Creator and the world, without changing their relation of cause and effect." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 15:425


"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings.  To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul.  I cannot reason otherwise; but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by the Lockes, the Tracys, and the Stewarts.  At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, or masked atheism, crept in, I do not exactly know.  But a heresy it certainly is.  Jesus taught nothing of it."  -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 15:274


"The relations which exist between man and his Maker, and the duties resulting from those relations, are the most interesting and important to every human being, and the most incumbent on his study and investigation." -- Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 19:414


"All men are. . . endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence


"May that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.  -- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address


"I offer my sincere prayers to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, that He may long preserve our country in freedom and prosperity." - Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:236


"Whatever is to be our destiny, wisdom as well as duty dictates that we should acquiesce in the will of Him whose it is to give and take away, and be contented in the enjoyment of those (loved ones) who are still permitted to be with us."  -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Page, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 11:32

"We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent.  Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it, and He will give them their effect in His own time." -- Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 9:516


Saturday, April 28, 2012

THE INFAMOUS AFFAIR BETWEEN GEORGE WASHINGTON AND SARAH (SALLY) FAIRFAX

Now for the truth about George and Sarah:  "Washington must have loomed like a giant over most of his contemporaries, as the men of that day were typically several inches shorter than those of our generation.  Tall, handsome, distinguished - the young military hero was certainly one of the most eligible bachelors in Virginia, yet he seemed awkward and unsure when he was courting.  Still, he felt the normal physical attractions of the typical young man, and he enjoyed his share of innocent romances.  We have already noted (previous chapter) his interest in an unidentified "Lowland Beauty" a few years earlier; he had also made an unsuccessful attempt for the hand of an Elizabeth Fauntleroy in 1752, and he had paid some attentions to the wealthy Mary Eliza Philipse of New York City during his 1756 journey to Boston.  But the relationship that has most intrigued many imaginative biographers, novelists, and magazine writers has been the enigmatic friendship of Washington and Sarah Cary Fairfax.  in December 1748 George William Fairfax brought his eighteen-year-old bride Sarah - known as Sally - to the family estate of Belvoir, not far from Mount Vernon.  Washington, two yard younger than Sally, frequently visited the couple when he was not away surveying or soldier gin, and over the years they became very good friends.  During his military campaigns the tall colonel found relaxation in newsy and sometimes witty correspondence with the Fairfaxes and other close associates.  These communications generally make interesting reading, but one in particular - a letter Washington purportedly sent to Sally in 1758 - has captured the attention of some historians.  It has led a number of Washington scholars to claim that he was "passionately in love with Mrs. Fairfax, while others have reached entirely different conclusions.  Washington reportedly wrote:

    I profess myself a votary of love.  I acknowledge that a lady is in the case, and I further confess that this lady is known to you.  Yes, Madam, as well as she is to one who is too sensible of her charms to deny the power whose influence he feels and must ever submit to.  I feel the force of her amiable beauties in the recollection of a thousand tender passages that I could wish to obliterate, till I am bid to revive them.  But experience, alas! sadly reminds me how impossible this is, and evinces an opinion which I have long entertained, that there is a Destiny which has the control of our actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of human nature.
    You have drawn me, dear Madam, or rather I have drawn myself, into an honest confession of a simple fact. Misconstrue not my meaning; doubt it not, nor expose it.  The world has no business to know the object of my love, declared in this manner to you, when I want to conceal it.  One thing above all things in this world I wish to know, and only one person of your acquaintance can (tell) me that, or guess my meaning.  But adieu to this…"



Young George Washington

 "In the eighteenth century, matters of the heart were guarded with a reserve that seems quite strained to our generation.  This letter is couched in such veiled and obscure language that it is difficult - perhaps impossible - to identify the "lady" about whom Washington was writing (if he did indeed write the letter; a discussion on that issue is found below).  Several biographers have decided that she was Martha Dandridge Custis, the quiet young widow to whom he was then engaged.  Some suggest that he had not yet conquered his affection for Sally's younger sister, Mary Cary, who had recently rejected his proposal of marriage. Many believe that he was alluding to Sally herself.

"It is true that Sally Fairfax was a vivacious and flirtatious young wife.  After Washington had returned from the Braddock disaster, for instance, he sent a letter to Belvoir telling George William and Sally of his safe return and inviting them to call on him.  He was utterly exhausted, both physically and emotionally, and had too little energy even for the short ride to Belvoir.  George William replied with a warm welcome home, then Sally added a saucy postscript to her husband's note:

    "Dear Sir - After thanking heaven for your safe return I must accuse you of great unkindest in refusing us the pleasure of seeing you this night.  I do assure you nothing but our being satisfied that our company would be disagreeable should prevent us from trying if our legs would not carry us to Mount Vernon this night, but if you will not come to us, tomorrow morning very early we shall be at Mount Vernon."


Sarah ("Sally") Fairfax

"The postscript was signed by Sally and two friends who were staying with her at Belvoir  Such a letter from a married woman definitely borders on the inappropriate.  Few other communications from Sally Fairfax to George Washington remain, so it is impossible to know if she was accustomed to playing the coquette in her letters.  She may have been a woman who loved to test her charms for the inner thrill of proving her attractiveness without intending any serious romantic consequences.

"If she was such a woman, her sauciness coupled with her beauty, vivaciousness, worldliness, and womanly maturity may have created an enticing combination for George Washington.  He had never enjoyed much success with the girls he had courted - and now one seemed to be making subtle approaches to him.  Perhaps George, even at twenty-six, was still naive and unsure of his feelings.  Perhaps he was attracted to Sally, even though she was the wife of one of his earliest and closest friends.

"However, such things cannot be postulated with any certainty.  We have little to go on, little to tell us of George's feelings for any woman before he found Martha Custis, the one who was to his heart's companion for life.  Even the obscure letter quoted above, in which Washington confesses himself a "votary of lover," is difficult to interpret.  After carefully reading the letter, all that one can say for certain is that Washington was in love and that he was confiding his secret to his friend, Sally, who knew the "lady" Washington had given his heart to.  But who was she?  We don't know.

"That letter holds another problem, every bit as difficult as its internal vagueness.  The letter remained undiscovered for more than a hundred years, until March 1877, when it was published in the New York Herald. The next day it was sold at an auction - but in neither case was it subjected by a known authority to the usual authenticating tests.  Was the letter a forgery?  Was it written by someone else?  Was it quoted correctly?  None of these questions can be answered, since the letter has long since been lost, never having been subjected to the necessary tests of handwriting, paper, and ink.

"When scholar John Fitzpatrick was collecting Washington's writings into a huge and exhaustive thirty-seven-volume set earlier in (the 20th) century, he seriously considered omitting this letter, since its validity is so questionable.  In the end he included it - but only with a warning that one must consider it with caution.

"If the letter was authentic, if Sally was a flirt with George, if the young colonel was indeed attracted to his friend's wife - all these combined give us an opportunity to see the depth of George Washington's character, even at that early age.  All evidence suggests that, regardless of his personal feelings, he chose to conduct himself properly, keeping himself entirely free from any immoral or improper encounter with the wife of his neighbor and close friend.

"As the eminent scholar Douglas Southall Freeman has noted, "There survives not one echo of the gossip that would haven been audible all along the Potomac had there been anything amiss in their relations."

"After the young military hero was married to Martha Custis, the Washingtons and the Fairfaxes often exchanged visits and enjoyed one another's company at dinners and parties.  They remained close until George and Sally Fairfax moved to England in 1773, never to return. However, even then George and Martha Washington continued to write to their old friends."

Original Sources:
- Washington's personal letters
- John Corbin, The Unknown Washington: Biographic Origins of the Republic
- Paul Leicester Ford, The True George Washington
- Bishop William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia
- William H. Wilbur, The Making of George Washington

All quoted from:
Jay A. Parry, Andrew M. Allison, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real George Washington, pp. 64-69





 ~      ~      ~

Have I blogged lately how very much I love to read true history and learn the truth of our national history?  And have I blogged lately how very much I love that Cleon Skousen is considered on the nation's upmost Constitutional scholars, historians, and scriptorians? And one reason I love his work is because he DIGS!  He digs to get to the original sources, and first hand accounts/personal writings.  He is honest and hides nothing, without regard to whether it paints a good picture or bad picture of the subject of his writing.  He writes the blunt truth.  You can't find that any more in "experts" and "historians" these days.  These days the majority of our experts and historians base their findings on the original faulty, false, re-written history garbage that got the "bad" rumors all started in the first place.  Hats off to those few who go beyond that to dig for the truth and publish it.  May God bless them to continue their work and reach many people with it.

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS - SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT


We have all been taught it:  Benjamin Franklin - a womanizer and Thomas Jefferson had an long-lasting affair with Sally Hemings, fathering many, but at least for sure one, child with her.  No one even doubts these "facts" these days.  Yet, all Americans should doubt them.  For they are false.

Here I share from a fabulous, factual, and fantastically true book, The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom, by W. Cleon Skousen, pp.227-235.  I cannot do this information justice, and so I type it as it appears in the book, in an effort to share the true history of another one of our Founders, and help to spread the "cleaning of his name." 

"Slander": 

1. A false tale or report maliciously uttered. and tending to injure the reputation of another by lessening him in the esteem of his fellow citizens, by exposing min to impeachment and punishment, or by impairing his means of lining; defamation. Slander, that worst of poisons, ever finds an easy entrance to ignoble minds.
2 Disgrace; reproach; disreputation; ill name.




A SEASON OF SLANDER

The Republican administration, despite its popularity with the masses, was subjected to a steady barrage of criticism by the Federalist press throughout Jefferson's two terms (as President).  The vilest attacks on the President himself, however, came from an unexpected source.

One of the victim's of the Sedition Act who was pardoned by President Jefferson in 1801 was James Thomas Callender, a Republican journalist who had been an unrelenting critics of the Federalists during the last presidential campaign.  But Callender wanted wanted more than a pardon: later that year he plainly told James Madison, the new Secretary of State, that he hoped to be appointed postmaster in Richmond, Virginia.

When it became clear that he was not going to be offered any government post, the embittered Callender sought revenge by going to work for a Federalist newspaper in Richmond.  In March 1802, he began publishing various charges against Republican leaders in Congress and certain members of the Cabinet.  By autumn he was training his guns on the President.

Callender has been described as "the most unscrupulous scandalmonger of the day, . . . a journalist who stopped at nothing and stooped to anything . . . [He] was not an investigative journalist; he never bothered to investigate anything.  For him, the story, especially if it reeked of scandal, was everything; truth, if it stood in his way, was summarily mowed down." [John Chester Miller, The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., The Free Press, 1977), pp. 153-54.  Another historian has noted that "almost every scandalous story about Jefferson which is still whispered or believed" can be traced to Callender.  James Truslow Adams, The Living Jefferson (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), p.315]  True to his style, he fabricated as series of scandalous stories about Jefferson's personal life, the ugliest of which charged him with having fathered several children by a mulatto slave at Monticello, a young woman named Sally Hemings.  Although Callender had never gone near Jefferson's estate, he alleged that this was common knowledge in the neighboring area.  He included many lurid details of this supposed illicit relationship among the "entertaining facts" [From an article by Callender in the Richmond Recorder (8 Dec. 1802), quoted in Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p. 213.  For a thorough account of Callender's attacks, see ibid., pp. 206-23.]

Other Federalist editors took up these accusations with glee, and Callender's stories spread like wildfire from one end of the country to the other - sometimes expanded and embellished by subsequent writers.  The President was charged with other evils as well;  the torrent of slander never seemed to let up.  As one biographer has written, "He suffered open personal attacks which in severity and obscenity have rarely if ever been matched in presidential history in the United States." [Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p. 206]

Like other men, Jefferson was sensitive to these false accusations.  Years earlier he had written, "My great wish is to go on in a strict but silent performance of my duty, to avoid attracting notice, and to keep my name out of newspapers, because I find the pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise." [TJ to Francis Hopkinson (13 Mar. 1789), Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols. (Washington: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907), 7:302.Hereafter cited as Bergh.]  Even before entering the presidency he felt he was being "used as the property of the newspapers, a fair mark for every man's dirt."  [TJ to Peregrine Fitzhugh (23 Feb. 1798), Bergh 10:1.]  And venom from Federalist penmen, he sorely lamented "the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies." [TJ to Dr. Benjamin Rush (21 Apr. 1803), Bergh 10:380.]

Publicly, however, he made no response to these unscrupulous attacks.  "I should have fancied myself half guilty," he said, "had I condescended to put pen to paper in refutation of their falsehoods, or drawn to them respect by any notice from myself." [TJ to Dr. George Logan (20 June 1816), Ford 10:27.]  Nor did he use the channels of civil authority to silence his accusers.  True to the declarations he had made in his inaugural address and elsewhere, he defended his countrymen's right to a free press.  The Baron Alexander von Humboldt, a famous German explorer and scientist, learned the depth of Jefferson's commitment to this principle when he visited the city of Washington in the summer of 1804.  Calling at the Executive Mansion one morning, Humboldt was invited to meet with the President in the Cabinet room.

"As he sat by the table, among the newspapers that were scattered about he perceived one that ws always filled with the most virulent abuse of Mr. Jefferson, calumnies the most offensive, personal as well as political.  "Why are these libels allowed?" asked the Baron, taking up the paper.  "Why is not this libelous journal suppressed, or its editor at least fined and imprisoned?"

"Mr. Jefferson smiled, saying, "Put that paper in your pocket, Baron, and should you hear the reality of our liberty [or] the freedom of our press questioned [in Europe], show this paper and tell where you found it" [Smith, The First Forty Years of Washington Society, pp. 396-97. Despite the libelous treatment to which he himself was subjected by the newspapers, Jefferson always believed that a free press was essential to free government. "Were it left to me," he once wrote, "to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." (TJ to Edward Carrington (16 Jan. 1787), Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols, 11:49)]

Jefferson's grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, described the calm perspective with which the President viewed these slanders:

"In speaking of the calumnies which his enemies had uttered against his public and private character with such unmitigated and untiring bitterness, he said that he had not considered them as abusing him; they had never known him.  They had created an imaginary being clothed with odious attributes, to whom they had given his name; and it was against that creature of their imaginations they had levelled their anathemas." [Thomas Jefferson Randolph to Henry S. Randall (n.d.), in Randall, The Life of Thomas Jefferson, 3:544.]

Not only did Jefferson remain silent about the sensational accusations of James Callender and like-minded journalists, but he also instructed the members of his Cabinet to do the same.  The Federalist press continued its harassment throughout Jefferson's presidency, but this unsavory effort lost much of its momentum after July 1803 - the month Callender drowned himself in the James River.

Although Jefferson chose not to defend himself against Callender's lies, the question of his alleged intrigue with Sally Hemings deserves brief consideration here because a number of recent authors, incredibly enough, have resurrected this vulgar tale under the guise of "modern scholarship." [The most widely distributed of these works in recent years is Fawn M. Brodie's Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1974), which relies on slight circumstancial evidence and amateur psychoanalysis.  The book has received very poor reviews by scholars who are familiar with the life and times of Jefferson.  David Herbert Donald, the Charles Warrne Professor of American History at Harvard University, observed that Mrs. Brodie did not seem to be troubled by "the fact that she can adduce only slim factual support for her tales of what she primly calls Jefferson's 'intimate life.' ... Such absence of evidence would stop most historians, but it does not faze Mrs. Brodie.  Where there are documents, she knows how to read them in a special way... Where documents have been lost, Mrs. Brodie can make much of he gap... Mrs. Brodie is masterful in using negative evidence too... But Mrs. Brodie is at her best when there is no evidence whatever to cloud her vision.  Then she is free to speculate." ("By Sex Obsessed," Commentary, July 1974, pp. 97-98.)  Historian and author Garry Wills, after noting the abundance of obvious historical errors in the book - "one can only be so intricately wrong by deep study and long effort" - remarked that Brodie's writing "involves heroic feats of misunderstanding and a constant labor at ignorance.  This seems too high a price to pay when the same appetites can be more readily gratified by those Hollywood fan magazines, with their wealth of unfounded conjecture on the sex lives of others, from which Ms. Brodie has borrowed her scholarly methods." ("Uncle Thomas's Cabin," New York Review of Books, 18 April 1974, pp. 26-28.)  One other representative comment comes from the Pulitzer Prize-winning Jefferson biographer, Dumas Malone: "This determined woman carries psychological speculation to the point of absurdity.  The resulting mishmash of fact and fiction, surmise and conjecture, is not history as I understand the term... To me the man she describes in her more titillating passages is unrecognizable."  Quoted in Virginius Dabney, The Jefferson Scandals: A Rebuttal (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1981), p.132.  It is interesting to note that Brodie's three earlier biographies of historical figures also dwelt on their supposed sexual misconduct and were written in a similar vein.]  The twentieth century has brought forth a rash of sensational and poorly researched publications designed to discredit America's Founding Fathers, and those which purport to "reveal" the clandestine Jefferson-Hemings affair are typical of this trend.

As for Callender's original accusations, they are immediately suspect because of his avowed hatred for Jefferson; and his stories about "Dusky Sally" are as incapable of proof today as they were when he wrote them. Ineed, many of the "facts" he dished up are known to be false.  Douglass Adair, one of the most highly respected historians of our era, concluded after examining all of the evidence on this matter which has now come to light: "Today, it is possible to prove that Jefferson was innocent of Callender's charges." ["The Jefferson Scandals" (written in 1960), Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair, ed.  Trevor Colbourn (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1974), p.169.  See the entire essay, pp.160-91, for a thorough presentation and skillful analysis of recent evidence touching on the Jefferson-Hemings legend.  See also Dabney, The Jefferson Scandals: A Rebuttal (cited in the preceding note).]

One of the recently discovered documents to which Adair referred was a letter written by the nineteenth-century biographer Henry Randall, recounting a conversation at Monticello between himself and Jefferson's oldest grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph.  In this conversation Randolph confirmed what others close to the family had already disclosed:  that Sally Hemings was actually the mistress of Jefferson's nephew, Peter Carr, and that "their connection...was perfectly notorious at Monticello."  He also pointed out that "there was not the shadow of suspicion that Mr. Jefferson in this or any other instance had commerce with female slaves."

"He said Mr. Jefferson never locked the door of his room by day, and that he (Colonel Randolph) slept within (the) sound of his breathing at night.  He said he had never seen a motion or look or a circumstance which led him to suspect for an instant that there was a particle more of familiarity between Mr. Jefferson and Sally Hemings than between him and the most repulsive servant in the establishment - and that no person ever living at Monticello dreamed of such a thing..."

Colonel Randolph said that he had spent a good share of his life closely about Mr. Jefferson, at home and on journeys, in all sorts of circumstances, and he fully believed him chaste and pure - as "immaculate a man as God ever created." [Henry S. Randall to James Parton (1 June 1868), in Milton E. Flower, James Parton: The Father of Modern Biography (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1951), pp.236-37.]

As Randolph implied, the most conclusive argument against Callender's attacks - or those of today's writers - is Jefferson's own character.  According to Professor Dumas Malone, whose monumental six-volume biography of Jefferson was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1975, the notion that such charges could be true is "virtually unthinkable in a man of Jefferson's moral standards and habitual conduct."

"To say this is not to claim that he was a plaster saint and incapable of moral lapses.  But his major weaknesses were not of this sort... It is virtually inconceivable that this fastidious gentleman whose devotion to his dead wife's memory and to the happiness of his daughters and grandchildren bordered on the excessive could have carried on through a period of years a vulgar liaison which his own family could not have failed to detect.  It would be as absurd as to charge this consistently temperate man with being, through a long period, a secret drunkard." [Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p.214.  See also Miller, The Wolf by the Ears, pp. 148-76.]

After these slanders had been widely circulated, Jefferson wrote privately that he "feared no injury which any man could do me;... I never had done a single act or been concerned in any transaction which I feared to have fully laid open, or which could do me any hurt if truly stated." [The Anas (15 Apr. 1806), Bergh 1:449-50.]  And shortly before the end of his presidency he said, "I can conscientiously declare that, as to myself, I wish that not only no act but no thought of mine should be unknown." [TJ to James Main (19 Oct. 1808), Bergh 12:175; italics added.]

It was probably fortunate for the American people that their President chose to ignore his enemies' ravings in the newspapers, as mounting difficulties at home and abroad soon proved more than enough to engage his full time and attention.  (THE END)

This man, this Founding Father of our nation, is an exemplary man.  How very sad it is to me that today it is not only rare, but extremely difficult to find a man or woman of this character and integrity.  Yet they walk among us, and these are the type of men and women that we must elect to our highest offices locally, state-wide, and nationally.  Why?  Because this is what it takes to run a nation.  It does not take "experience", it takes integrity and the fear of God.  With those two in place, then God makes them capable.  It is my prayer that we may find men and women of this caliber in our nation today, as our current leader, President Obama, falls so woefully short of this.  (And so many previous Presidents do too!)

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR CHARTER SCHOOLS??

HERE is a worthwhile article to read, by Phyllis Schlafly, a Constitutional lawyer, American politically conservative activist and author who founded the Eagle Forum.

Phyllis Schlafly
 In THIS ARTICLE she is describing exactly what is going on in our infamous "Charter Schools," and it turns my stomach.  I turns my stomach because I have a little something down deep inside telling me this is happening by no "accident."

Here is what I find frustrating.  When our Founders established this nation, they desired and even taught that American children should be taught in good schools how to become good and virtuous citizens of this great nation. These children should know our rich, true, and Providential history, and they should know our Founders and all about their lives, readings, and writings.  These kids should be taught from the Bible and should have a rigorous course on the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. In fact, there was even a Constitutional Catechism that was taught to children for over 100 years.

However, the Founders never proposed nor desired for the schools to be run by the Federal Government.  They very carefully enumerated the powers granted to the Federal Government, and those did not include the education of children.  That was the duty of the local communities and parents.

Well, eventually "modern education reform" came into being, and the old (and better) ways were done away, and now we're stuck with a bunch of low-grade public education schools throughout this nation.  Enter "Charter Schools."  Supposedly these are to return "power" back to the teachers, parents, and school administrators, with no interference by the Federal Government or the Teacher Unions.  This story by Schlafly is about how that went terribly wrong.

So I'm sitting here thinking: Ok, we're SUPPOSED to have local/parental control over schools, so that would be a GOOD thing, right?  But then, in today's culture, when we do turn it over to local/parental control, LOOK WHAT HAPPENS!!  That's a bad thing!

So... what's the answer?  Do we go back to having Federally controlled schools?  Or do we go back to the drawing board and figure out a better way to have schools be at the local/parental control?

I believe the answer lies in something that John Adams said:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Without morality, which comes primarily from religion, those who lead will do so without any scruples.

And that is exactly the mess we find ourselves in, in regard to Charter Schools.  Not only are they being allowed to run, but I am of the belief (from the years of research I've done on politics in this nation) that this was passively "allowed" to happen, in order to bring more indoctrination into this nation of the Islamic faith.

It is well known, and can be easily researched on the internet, how it is that throughout our nation Islam is being implemented or is in the attempt of being implemented, even to the degree of having Sharia Law in our Judicial System.   So why not have it begin with young children?  That is the way all enemies "infiltrate" and "indoctrinate" after all.  "Get 'em while they're young."


Well, this Texan is not one to take it sitting down.  I will do what I can to ensure that our nation stays free, and it my hope that the read will too.

Chuck Norris Column: The Benign and Benevolent President Obama? | NewsBusters.org

Chuck Norris Column: The Benign and Benevolent President Obama? | NewsBusters.org

President Obama, is just blatantly grabbing more and more power unto himself. We cannot just stand here and do nothing people.   We must FORCE ourselves to MAKE time in our day to educate ourselves on or State and National Constitutions and laws, and then get involved.  It all begins at the local level! 

101 CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS (and answers) TO ASK CANDIDATES

W. Cleon Skousen - 101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates - Written in 1980
 Because so many millions of Americans finally realize that something is seriously wrong with the way the government is handling our affairs, people are continually asking: “Do you think there is still time to turn it around?”
When you ask, “Still time before what?” they usually reply: “Before total disaster overtakes.”
For those who wonder about such things the answer is this: “Yes, there is still time, but not much.”

The next question is: “What can we do to get America turned around and regain our national sanity?”

The answer is: “Elect a President and a majority in Congress who still believe in the Constitution and will fight to return America to her original moorings.”



Identifying Constitutional Candidates

“But how can you tell when a candidate for political office is really a Constitutionalist?”
If the candidate is already in office he will have a voting record which will clearly show whether or not he is a Constitutionalist. Several organizations monitor the Congress and publish the results.

However, if the candidate is a newcomer to politics you will have to test his knowledge of Constitutional principles by asking a few questions.

What Kind of Questions Should Be Asked?

We are listing a few of the many questions which might be addressed to a candidate in order to determine whether or not he stands for those basic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers.

As we go through these questions you will note that nearly all of them can be easily answered by anyone who has attended the “Miracle of America” seminars on the Constitution. In the text for this course the answers to all of these questions are explained and documented. If your candidate does not know the answers, invite him to take a Constitutional seminar at the earliest possible date. The thirteen hours required for this study may turn out to be the best investment in political orientation he could find. No American should run for public office until he has studied the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Questions on General Principles

1. Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?
The founders said it is in the people “by God’s own allowance”. No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people’s representatives.

2. In what way are “all men created equal?”
All humanity are equal in three ways: 1. equal before God, 2. equal before the law, 3. equal in their rights. In all other respects people are different.

3. What is an inalienable right?
An inalienable right is one which comes as an “endowment from the Creator” and cannot be violated without coming under the judgment of God.

4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?
The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5. What did the founders mean by the “pursuit of happiness?”
This is a collective phrase designed to cover all of the other inalienable rights.

6. Give an example of an inalienable right which is essential to the pursuit of happiness.
The Founders believed, for example, that human happiness requires that each of us enjoy the right to acquire, develop and dispose of property. They believed that without the protection of property rights, all other rights are placed in serious jeopardy.

7. What are some of the other inalienable rights?
The inalienable rights of mankind include such things as the right of self government; the right of human beings to beget their own kind; the right of parents to rear their children free from outside interference (unless there is criminal abuse or neglect); the right to freedom of belief; the right to freedom of speech; the right to assemble; the right to petition; the right to change residence; the’ right to change jobs, etc.

8. What is the purpose of government?
The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide “liberty under law,” which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty. and well-being of the people.


THE AMERICAN STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT

9. What is a democracy?
A democracy is a government wherein decisions are made by the masses of the people rather than by elected representatives.

10. What is a republic?
A republic is a system in which the laws are passed and decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.

11. Why did Jefferson call the American system a democratic-republic?
Because the system allows the masses of qualified voters to participate in the election of their officials (democracy) and then the people’s elected representatives enact the laws and administer the affairs of the people under majority rule but with the equal protection of individual rights (a republic).

12. Is it a mistake, therefore, to call the United States a democracy?
Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from “democracy” is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people’s elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over “pure democracy” would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.

THE TASK OF CONTROLLING POWER

13. Why is separation of power safer than concentration of power?
Government is “force” which Washington compared to “fire” and said government is a “dangerous servant” and a “fearful master.” Power should be dispersed among the people where they can keep it under control.

14. How should the powers of government be separated?
First of all the Founders wanted political power separated vertically. They considered the principal power base of society to be the family. However, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (police, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated to the community. Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to the higher level of the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the State level. The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders’ pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all. 1

15. What remedies did the Founders provide if government officials violated the channel of power assigned to them?
Administrative pressures from other departments are provided and if his offenses are serious he can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.

16. Why did the Founders want the powers of government to flow from the bottom up rather than the top down?
Jefferson stated that a political unit governs best which governs least. In other words, the services which the people need from government are relatively simple and when circumstances are normal the people like to conduct their affairs with as little interference from the government as possible. Consequently, in the Founders’ original plan for a happy and prosperous society, the functions of government were designed to be relatively simple and remarkably cheap.

17. Then why do we have such a complicated and expensive government today?
The professional politicians learned that in a war, depression, or a serious crisis, the people will endure higher taxes and a far greater concentration of authority on the higher levels of government. Certain politicians therefore set out to exploit every emergency as an excuse for the acquiring of more power. During most of the twentieth century ambitious politicians trumpeted the message that the government can solve practically all problems better than the people. Today, as a result, Americans are being literally “programmed” to death. And taxes have skyrocketed.

SEPARATING POWER HORIZONTALLY

18. How did the Founders separate power horizontally?
There are three functions of government at each level of society. One function is to make the law, another is to administer the law and a third is to interpret the law. These are all on the same horizontal level and are referred to as the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. The Founders wanted these three functions to be separated into equal, independent departments. At the same time, they wanted to coordinate these functions so that one department could not function without the other two. Each department was therefore assigned to serve as a check on the others. The idea of the Founders was to have these functions of government “coordinated but never consolidated.” This was one of the most ingenious devices contributed by the Founders.

19. What happens if the separation of powers breaks down either vertically or horizontally?
The Founders warned that if the vertical separation of power should ever break down so that all power began to be concentrated in Washington, there would be a severely arrogant abuse of the people by government officials. They also said that if the legislative executive and judicial departments failed to act as a check on each other, there would be tyranny and the people would lose their freedom. For more than one full generation this is what has been happening.

AMERICANS EXPERIMENT WITH ANOTHER SYSTEM

20. Is the consolidation of government functions the trend today?
Yes. Consolidation of power is gravitating toward Washington at a pace which would have greatly alarmed the Founders.

21. What has caused this?
Beginning around 1900 certain wealthy influential groups lost confidence in the original American system and began propagandizing the people into believing that a “redistribution of the wealth” by the government would greatly improve the American life style. This theory of economics with its concentration of political power at the center of government is usually referred to as socialism. Samuel Adams vigorously warned against these principles. He said socialism violates equal protection of rights and completely destroys the concept of limited government. In fact, he said the Founders had done everything possible to make these collectivist policies “unconstitutional.”

22. What has been the result?
These policies launched the United States on a wild and dizzy trajectory which has resulted in run-away inflation; a huge burden of national debt; taxes which are devouring nearly half of the peoples’ earning power; a serious invasion of individual rights; and a virtual collapse of states rights.

23. Has socialism or “collectivism” worked anywhere in the world?
Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as Communism, Nazism, and Fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called “peaceful” forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proven counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor’s edge of perpetual bankruptcy. Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.

24. How did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?
They did it by setting up a “limited” form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the “chains” of the Constitution.
American Leaders Began to Abandon the Founders Success Formula

25. Does this mean Theodore Roosevelt was In error when he said the President could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids?
Yes, he was turning the Constitution upside down. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as “usurpation.”

26. Was President Woodrow Wilson also in error when he said the United States should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world?
Yes. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the United States should try to be friendly with all nations, but beholden to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war.

27. Was Franklin D. Roosevelt in error when he structured the New Deal?
Yes. The New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was “tax, tax — spend, spend — elect, elect!”

28. Was Lyndon Johnson in error when he said, “We will take from the haves and give to the have nots!”
The Founders would certainly have called it an error. There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to “soak the rich,” but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes.

29. Was President Nixon in error when he continually tried to involve the United States in a “New World Order”?
Yes. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations.

30. Was President Carter in error when he began meddling in domestic affairs of foreign nations?
Yes. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the United States would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any President or Secretary of State who has followed a policy of “interventionism,” has operated outside of his Constitutional authority.
Presidential Violations of the Constitution

31. What about executive orders which are treated as laws after being published in the federal register?
In the eyes of the Founders these would be considered unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision but he has no authority whatever to make “laws” for the people since the Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure.

32. What about executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign governments?
This procedure is also unconstitutional. The Founders provided that all agreements with foreign nations must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Since American Presidents began holding summit conferences with the heads of foreign governments, they have been entering into secret engagements which very often never see the light of day let alone receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Each year there are many more executive agreements signed by the President than there are treaties ratified by the Senate.

JUDICIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

33. What about new laws laid down by the Supreme Court?
This is called “judicial legislation.” This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court.

34. How is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the Constitution?
The Founders made it very clear that the Supreme Court would be violating its assignment if it substituted its own opinions for that of the Founders. Until recently it has always been an established principle that the
Constitution must be interpreted the way the Founders intended it and not according to the whims or caprice of modern justices.

35. Is there any way to curb the Supreme Court from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner?
Yes. A Judicial Reform Amendment would allow any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. A decision could also be overturned by concurring resolutions from three-fourths of the State Legislatures. Had this procedure been available the States would have’ undoubtedly outlawed forced busing of school children at least twenty years ago.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL EDICTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES

36. Is it Constitutional for an agency of the Federal Government to write rules and regulations which are enforced in the courts as “laws?”
No. This is a recent development in governmental procedures. It is called “administrative law.” The Founders provided no power in any agency of government to make laws except the Congress.
Blurring the Founders’ Division of Labor Between
the States and the Federal Government

37. How did the Founders intend to divide the problem-solving powers between the States and the Federal Government?
James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, No. 45. He wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined…. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

38. How did the Founders know whether to assign a problem to the State or Federal Governments?
If a problem involved foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes on the high seas, navigable waters, naturalization, etc.) it went to the Federal Government. All other powers were retained by the States.

39. How many areas of power were ultimately assigned to the Federal Government?
The Constitution gives the Federal Government twenty powers. These are set forth in Article I, Section 8.

40. What if the Federal Government thinks it needs more power?
The government cannot legally exercise any powers except those which are specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The only way Washington can get any additional legitimate power is by an amendment.

41. Where does it say that the Federal Government is specifically restricted from exercising any power not granted to it by the States?

THE TENTH AMENDMENT

42. Then how did the government get so much power?
The dominating arrogance of the Federal Government today came about primarily through three channels: 1. outright usurpation of power, 2. an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, and 3. distorting the Commerce Clause as the means of shattering the restrictive chains of the Constitution and expanding Federal jurisdiction into hundreds of areas never intended by the Founders..
Subverting Two Important Constitutional Clauses

43. What was the Butler Case?
In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the “general welfare” of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.

44. In what way has the Commerce Clause been distorted to give the Federal Government unconstitutional powers?
This clause was simply designed to give the Federal Government sufficient power to insure the “free flow” of commerce so that the States would not interfere with inter-state shipments as they had done in the past. Since 1936 the original intent of the Founders has been expanded to include Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court), has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation.

SOME PRACTICAL QUESTIONS

45. Doesn’t the more complex nature of modern society require a far more extensive control of the economy by the Federal Government?
No. The more complex society becomes the more it needs the automatic problem-solving devices of a free-market economy operating with the least possible interference from government. As Adam Smith pointed out, government interference only adds to the complexity of the system and results in a serious deterioration of individual freedom.

46. What is a modern example of the Founders’ original success formula solving some of the highly complex problems of a modern society?
No nation could have had a much more complex situation than West Germany right after World War II. Every major city in Germany was bomb-gutted and the people were surviving in basements and make-shift hovels. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany took over in 1949 and immediately initiated the basic economic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers. By using freedom instead of heavy-handed government regulations, West Germany achieved the highest standard of living in Western Europe within eight years. The West Germans were not only fully employed but importing foreign labor besides. Clothing, food and housing were abundant and cheap. West Germany became so prosperous she was the envy of socialized Sweden. It will be recalled that Sweden wasn’t even in the war and had boasted of the superiority of her socialist controls. However, in Sweden a young married. couple has to wait ten years to get a one-room apartment because of the government monopoly over housing. It was obvious West Germany had chosen a better way.

QUESTIONS ABOUT MONEY AND THE BUDGET

47. What happened to the Federal budget after the “Butler” case?
In 1936 (the year of the Butler case) the Federal budget was around six billion dollars. By 1980 the looting of the American taxpayer had pushed the Federal budget to more than six hundred billion dollars!

48. Is it Constitutional for the government to spend more money that it takes in?
Yes. The Constitution allows the government to borrow in emergencies. Unfortunately, during the last 50 years Congress has continually found excuses to borrow whether there was an emergency or not. The only way to stop this is to replace the big spenders in Congress with Constitutionalists who recognize that we are presently on a disaster course.

THE NATIONAL DEBT

49. How much is the national debt today?
The U.S. National Debt is nearly a trillion dollars (extremely higher today!) requiring interest payments which cost more each year than the entire cost of World War I. Future liabilities to which the government is already committed will require taxation of an additional six to seven trillion.

50. How does the U.S. debt compare with the debts of other nations?
The United States now owes more than all of the rest of the nations of the world combined.

51. Why would the Founders have considered this gigantic indebtedness immoral?
The Founders said that no generation should go so deeply in debt that it becomes guilty of squandering the next generation’s inheritance. They said such extravagance is immoral. All past generations tried to pay off all the debts accrued during their time. Ours is the first generation which has deliberately squandered the inheritance of its children.

WHAT ABOUT WELFARE?

52. But hasn’t much of our money been spent for welfare and other Important social programs?
This was the main excuse for sky-rocketing taxation and deficit spending. Tragically, however, the money has been squandered primarily to build a vast bureaucracy. It is amazing how many of the government’s multibillion dollar social programs have provided only a pittance to trickle down to the poor, the sick and the elderly.

53. But didn’t the government have to try to do something to help those in need?
The Founders specifically warned against this type of political deception where the compassion of the people is exploited to build big government and raise taxes. They said that all types of charity and welfare should be handled on the local level where abuses could be quickly detected and corrected.

54. But what if the states do not provide needed services?
The existence of a need on a State level does not create a power on the Federal level. When a State fails to fulfill its obligation the pressure should be exerted on the State, not the Federal government. Jefferson said there is no way to preserve freedom if all political power gravitates to Washington.

THE NATIONAL DEBT AND FOREIGN AID

55. In view of America’s tremendous national debt, why do we continue giving foreign aid to over a 125 countries?
This whole procedure violates the Constitution and common sense. What started out as part of the defense program in the interest of the United States has turned into an international Santa Claus give-away program. similar to the extravagant give-away programs at home. Tens of billions given away each year automatically add to the national debt.

SOCIAL SECURITY

56. Is Social Security an insurance plan or a welfare plan?
The Supreme Court has held that it is a welfare plan. This means that it can be terminated at anytime. It also means the government can distribute its proceeds arbitrarily. The contributor to social security payments acquires no rights and receives only what the government condescends to distribute to him as “payments” if he qualifies under the government’s arbitrary poverty level.

57. Is there a better way?
Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it. [these figures would be higher now]

58. Is the Federal Income Tax Constitutional?
Yes. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted according to the requirements of the constitution.

59. Is this the type of tax which the Founding Fathers would have employed?
No. They provided that direct taxes be apportioned to the States according to population, not according to the incomes of the people.

60. Has income tax been administered uniformly?
No. A graduated income tax violates the equal protection of rights. It violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property of accumulated wealth less sacred than those who have less.

61. Is it possible to administer the Income Tax fairly?
No. This could only be done by setting up a universal monitoring system similar to a “police state.” This would violate all of the basic rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.

62. Would it ever be possible to repeal the Federal Income Tax?
Yes. By phasing out governmental activities which are clearly outside the Constitution, the cost of government would be greatly reduced and the income tax could be safely eliminated.

63. Would the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment interfere with defense and other legitimate Federal responsibilities?
No. Corporate taxes and other sources of Federal revenue would more than adequately provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government if its unconstitutional expenses were phased out. Who knows, there might even be a surplus!

64. What about the thousands of Federal-aid programs covering nearly every aspect of American life?
Federal grants are unconstitutional unless directly related to some power specifically delegated to the Federal Government. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would probably wipe out at least 95% of the Federal-aid programs presently plaguing the nation.
Federal Regulatory Agencies

65. What about EPA?
The Environmental Protection Act involves problems which the Founders delegated exclusively to the States where local supervision could prevent abuses and deal with over-regulation more readily. Today, federal control over air, water, and land environment is strangling the economy and suppressing the development of energy and natural resources.

66. What about OSHA?
Occupational safety and health are important responsibilities but they should never have been delegated to the Federal level. The Founders knew that government is too big, and the legal machinery too expensive for most citizens to handle. They therefore endure the disruptive and oppressive edicts of this agency because it has been too big for the average citizen to fight.

67. What about the Federal Communications Commission?
This agency was designed to “police” the traffic on the air waves but the FCC has used its licensing power to control the editorial content of programs. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

68. What about the Pure Food and Drug Administration?
There is no authority for this agency under the Constitution. If it is in the national interest to have such an agency it should have been authorized by an amendment. There is already a wide-spread criticism of the arbitrary manner in which this agency has exercised its broad spectrum of power.

69. What about Consumer Protection?
Here again we have an exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution. Do we really want that much power allocated to the Federal level where the agency is so big and powerful that not even the largest corporations are able to cope with its abuses?

WHAT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT SETTING UP BUSINESS OPERATIONS? 

70. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the government to set up tax-exempt corporations or business operations to compete with tax-paying citizens?
The answer is no, unless the corporation or business is directly connected with an area of Federal responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. For example, an independent government corporation to provide mail service would be constitutional. However, a corporation set up to compete in the production of electricity, the manufacturing of clothes, or the operating of a chain of public restaurants, would not.

71. How many corporations and businesses does the government operate at the present time which are unauthorized by the constitution?
Around 700 corporations and 11,000 businesses. [much higher now]

72. Are all of these tax-exempt?
Yes. They are not only tax-exempt but most of them are being subsidized out of tax funds because they are not being operated efficiently.
What Caused the “Sagebrush Rebellion?”

73. Shouldn’t all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?
Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

74. Which states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an equal footing?
All of the Western States and Alaska.

75. In what way were they forced to accept statehood unequally?
Large regions of these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

76. About how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these states?
The government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and 96% of Alaska.

77. Are any of these states attempting to get this land back?
Yes. The press has labelled this effort the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” but it is not a rebellion. These states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to have this land turned back to them.

WHAT ABOUT LOCKING UP STATE TERRITORY AS WILDERNESS AREAS?

78. Does the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to lock up large blocks of land within a state as a “wilderness reserve?”
No. This violates the express provisions of the Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.

79. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest within the confines of a state?
No. This is not included in the list of territories which the Federal Government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the State. (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the Constitution to justify it. Historically, the States have had fewer forest fires and have maintained the State forests on a higher level than the national forests.

80. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within the confines of a State?
No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule State Parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by the Federal Government.
What About Federal Control of Energy Resources?

81. Does the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the production of energy resources within a state?
No.

PROBLEMS WITH GOVERNMENT MONOPOLIES

82. What about the widely expanded activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission?
The Founders never intended the “regulation of commerce” to include cartel monopolies, fixing prices, fixing routes, and regulating industries into bankruptcy. The recent deregulation of airlines dramatically demonstrated the advantage of free-market competition over a system of unconstitutional governmental regulations.

83. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set prices?
Not in time of peace.

84. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set wages?
Not in time of peace.

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

85. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to enter into labor-management disputes in the private sector?
No. This area of Federal usurpation occurred during the “New Deal” days by completely distorting the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEW

86. Is there any Constitutional foundation for the extravagant and wasteful expenditures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?
No. Each of the agencies under HEW has developed since the Butler Case. The dictum in this case authorized the general welfare clause to be interpreted in a manner which extended government intrusion into areas specifically excluded from Federal jurisdiction by the Founders.

87. About how much of the Federal budget Is spent each year on these unconstitutional activities?
Around 201 billion dollars in 1980 which is approximately 1/3 of the Federal budget.

88. Would it require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Department of HEW?
No. An act of Congress could dismantle this extremely costly department which has probably been more wasteful and nonproductive in its assigned area of activity than any other branch of the government.

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

89. Why are so many millions of American women now opposing the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment?
In the beginning nearly everyone assumed that this amendment was designed to provide equal rights for women. This supposed objective was widely approved. It was only after 30 states had ratified this amendment that it was realized that the simple wording of this amendment would actually destroy a broad spectrum of rights which American women already have.

90. What are some of the rights of American women which ERA would destroy?
At present American women enjoy both the common law right as well as the statutory right to be supported, along with their children, by their husbands. ERA would not only destroy this right but also eliminate many rights relating to employment, maternity leave, insurance and survival rights which are presently provided by law.

91. Would passage of the Equal Rights Amendment give women any more rights than they now have?
No. All of the rights which the advocates of ERA claim they are getting for women through the passage of this amendment are already provided by law.

92. Would the passage of ERA further damage the original separation of powers instituted by the Founders?
Yes. For example, it would transfer a large percentage of cases involving family and other domestic problems from the State courts to the Federal judiciary which is already smothered with legal problems.
Abortions

93. Is Federal funding of abortion a violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The specific and limited authority granted to the Federal Government does not include any funding for abortions.

THE GOLD AND SILVER STANDARD

94. Was the United States taken off the gold and silver standard in violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The gold standard is written into the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and was removed by several acts of Congress without an amendment to the Constitution between 1934 and 1964. From the Founding Fathers standpoint this whole procedure was illegal.

THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

95. Is it Constitutional for Federal funds to be used in the financing of local schools?
No. The Founding Fathers warned against the funding of schools by the Congress. In fact, education in the U.S. has seriously deteriorated since Federal funding began. James Madison equated the Federal funding of schools as extremely dangerous and said it was almost as bad as funding and controlling the churches of the nation.

96. Should the members of State and educational associations be required by law to pay dues to the National Educational Association?
No. The NEA is a private lobby with an annual budget of nearly $60 million dollars. It succeeded in getting the States to pass a law requiring the educators in State associations to pay dues to the NEA. These laws should be repealed. Teachers find themselves compelled to pay dues to this private organization which often advocates policies that are inimical to the best interests of American education.

TAXES ON DIVIDENS

97. Should stockholders be required to pay income taxes on their dividends when the corporation has already been subject to a corporate tax?
No. The stockholders are the owners of the company. They have already paid around 48% tax on the company’s earnings. The residue should be distributed among the stockholders as funds on which the required tax has already been paid.
Control of Firearms

98. Should the Federal Government pass laws providing for the control of guns?
No. The Founders left gun control under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State. They felt it was extremely dangerous to allow the Federal Government to “infringe” on the right to bear arms even in the slightest degree.

THE MODERN METHOD OF ELECTING SENATORS

99. Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed?
The Founders would undoubtedly say yes. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people and set up a Senate to represent the individual States. Senators were originally appointed by State legislatures and were the watchdogs of States rights. The Seventeenth Amendment took away the authority of the State Legislatures to appoint Senators. and therefore required Senatorial candidates to appeal to the people in a popular election. This resulted in the Senators frequently ignoring States rights in an effort to get more money for their States just as Congressmen do. States’ rights have been seriously deteriorating since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913. It destroyed an important element of balance which the founders built into the Constitution.

THE BLM

100. Should the Bureau of Land Management be abolished?
Yes. This bureau has been rapidly phasing out the traditional grazing rights of ranchers and setting up impossible regulations on land which should have been turned over to the States when they were admitted into the Union.
Government Expenses

101. Can you find out how the government spends its money?
Yes. A complete breakdown of government spending is published each year by the Government Printing Office. This is required by the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Now, as nearly as we can ascertain from the writings of the Founding Fathers, this is about the way they would have answered each of these 101 questions. We have also tried to reflect the line of reasoning which their writings portray when similar questions were raised in their own day.

It is believed their point of view deserves careful consideration in view of the rather calamitous consequences which modern Americans have encountered as a result of following a different line of thinking. The socialist or collectivist formula has not worked for Americans; nor any one else for that matter.

It is believed this generation of Americans could earn the eternal gratitude of their descendants if they would immediately undertake to restore the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.