Monday, April 30, 2012


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


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.


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." 


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.


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


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? |

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

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! 


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Saturday, April 7, 2012


After watching this video, I posted this on my Facebook, and now here.
It comes from my heart and hard-earned knowledge and wisdom.

I know there are people who follow Ron Paul that act wild and passionate.  For some of them, that's putting it lightly.  I'm sure there are even some that are very extreme, though I personally wish there wasn't.  However, when was the last time you ever saw someone be that passionate about ANY president or candidate?  Representative or Senator? I'm willing to bet the answer is NEVER.

That's because there never was a reason to be passionate.  But there is now.  His name is Ron Paul. And he hits the nail squarely on the head every time.

Ron Paul has the integrity and morality to lead this nation. But he also has the knowledge and wisdom he needs to now who the real enemies are. And he has the record and fortitude to fight those enemies until his last breath.
Dear Friends: please understand this: This video is real. This video is telling you the truth. Please understand that your paradigm, my paradigm, all of our paradigms, have been shaped and warped by design since before we were born. Our parents, our grandparents, were all brought up from birth with the same warping. Please open your eyes. Please allow your paradigm to change so that you can see the truth.

Mitt Romney does not understand these things. He is, unknowingly, part of the design. Santorum, Bush, Obama, Gingrich, Clinton, Reagan, all the presidents back to 1903 were part of the design.

Please learn. Please de-brainwash yourself from buzz words like "secret societies" and "conspiracies" - because that is exactly what we are facing. The modern day Gadiantons. Read ETHER chapters 2 and 8 and you will see the warning. Please listen to this video and take it seriously.

Please vote Ron Paul. He is the only GOP runner that gets it. He comprehends the big picture, whereas all the other GOP front runners do not. Ron Paul is not insane and he does not have a "crazy" foreign policy. Those thoughts that cause us to think that way are part of the indoctrination and design that we have grown up with. We must shed it if we wish to see the truth and save our nation and constitution.

If you know me very well, you will know that I have been researching and studying these things for years. And I do not lightly choose someone to support, as I have chosen Ron Paul. Much less recommend. I used to be "one of the crowd." I used to be pacified, just like most of you are. I used to believe that things were no-way that bad. And then I studied, learned, researched, and grew in understanding. I came to see the big picture. And I hope to share that with others and help them see it too. Our nation and the future of our grandchildren depend on everyone learning these truths.

Thanks for your time.

I invite you to join the Revolution!
Let's turn this nation around for the better, and get her on her feet again!

Friday, April 6, 2012


I take my text from a book by W. Cleon Skousen titled "The Cleansing of America."  I hope it help American citizens come to understand the truth that we are a Judeo-Christian nation. And that's a good thing.

"In the early days of this nation, the Bible-reading, Christian-oriented people prevailed in nearly every segment of the nation. Gradually, however, the evils of a hostile Gentile (not a member of Christ's Church) culture began to hover over the nation like an ominous cloud. As we move into the early years of the twenty-first century, we find Gentile wickedness, violence, and crime penetrating the fabric of nearly every dimension of our national culture.

"This came about as a result of a carefully contrived attack on the very foundation of America as perceived by the Founding Fathers.  These evil Gentile master planners aimed their attack at God's STANDARD OF MORALITY, God's VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE, and God's CODE OF DIVINE LAW.  In fact these people - whom the scriptures refer to as "gentiles" - boldly ridiculed the idea of there even being a God.  This anti-theistic propaganda spread into the colleges and universities, and even took root in some of the major churches.  After two generations, the famous philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, felt their campaign had been so successful that he arrogantly announced, "God is dead!"  Then he went insane. (Skousen, The Naked Communist, Salt Lake City: The Ensign Publishing Company, 1962, pp.350-352)

"Atheism has remained the very foundation of the gentile culture and the latest trend is to glamorize its philosophy under the title of "Secular Humanism."  But there is no attempt to hide its fundamental beliefs.  (Abstracted from the official statements found in Humanist Manifesto I and Humanist Manifesto II) In its two official "manifestos" it projects the following:

1. There is no God.
2. Man has no soul and therefore no immortality.
3. Man must be his own savior.
4. No act is sin in and of itself.
5. Prayer is ineffectual.
6. There were never any miracles.
7. There was never a divine creation.
8. There is no "last judgment."
9. The Bible is merely a composition of man-made writings.
10. The morals of the Bible are puritanical and outdated.

"As we previously indicated, some of the major religious denominations have gradually surrendered many of their biblical beliefs to Secular Humanism.  This was reflected in a poll of the delegates at a convention of the National Council of Church, indicating (Homer Duncan, Lubbock, Texas, Secular Humanism, The Missionary Crusader, 1979, p.36) 33% denied the existence of God, 36% expressed doubt about the deity of Christ. 31% doubted life after death.  62% questioned the miracles.  77% denied the existence of a devil.

"Of course, we scarcely need to be reminded that atheism constituted the cornerstone of Marx's International Communism in the Soviet Union and China; Hitler's Nazism in Germany; and Mussolini's Fascism in Italy.  It also dominated the thinking in many of the democratic socialist countries of Europe.  Eventually these powerful atheistic forces combined to take over more than a third of the entire human race. 

Sigmund Freud, 1921

"Meanwhile, the intellectual world embellished its anti-theisitc thiking with the books of two famous men who totally devastated the Judeo-Christian beliefs of millions of people.  The first of these two men was SIGMUND FREUD (1856-1939).  He graduated from medical school in Vienna, Austria, and developed a revolutionary approach to the normal pressures of life by applying certain principles which he called "psycho-analysis."

"His theories were based on the premise that individual mental health requires that a person must accommodate or ameliorate the frustrating impulses which prey upon us, the most powerful of which is the sex drive.  Freud called a person's sex drive the "libido."  According to Freud, the idea of uninhibited sex or total sexual gratification is a "scientific" requirement for sound mental health.

"In fact, researchers have found that Freud was deeply concerned about his own "libido."  For fifteen years he was a heavy user of cocaine, thinking it would increase his sexual drive.  Of course, Freud's theories and practices played havoc with the Ten Commandments and Christian restraints designed to curb urges which violate God's law.

"But it was not until after Freud had died in 1939 that his theories came under the close scrutiny of many professional analysts.  When Dr. E. Fuller Torrey came out with his report on what he discovered from a study of Freud, he was so angry he called his book "Freudian Fraud - The Malignant Effect of Freud's Theory on American Thought and Culture. (New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, 1992; 20 W. Cleon Skousen - The Cleansing of America)

" Meanwhile, another alleged "scientist" picked up where Freud left off and created a cultural shock even greater than Freud.  His name was ALFRED C. KINSEY, and he was originally associated with the University of Indiana as a professor of Zoology but eventually induced the university to finance him as head of an Institute for Sexual Research.  He and his associates then claimed they were conducting - for the first time in history - a study of human sexual behavior.

Alfred Charles Kinsey

 "He published "The Sexual Behavior of the Human Male" in 1948 and "The Sexual Behavior of the Human Female" in 1953.  Both books were later combined into what became known as "The Kinsey Report."

"What shocked America were his alleged statistics, which proved "scientifically" that homosexuality, promiscuity, and pedophilia (sex with children) were much more widespread than anyone had suspected.  It later turned out that many of his interviews were with prison inmates, prostitutes, and other subjects who were far from representative of the general population.  When D. Judith A. Reisman and three associates investigated Kinsey's Institute and discovered the reckless and incompetent manner in which he had put together his so-called "scientific" statistics, they published a book called, "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud - the Indoctrination of a People." (Dr. Judith A. Reisman, Edward W. Eichel, Dr. John H. Court & Dr. J. Gordon Muir, Lafayette, LA : Lochinvar-Huntington House Publications, 1990)

"The "people", of course, were primarily the Americans who had fallen for Kinsey as an alleged expert.  After all, he had published pages of statistics to prove that "everybody is doing it, so why are you missing out? And that is exactly the way his book was interpreted by the public.  It was a best-seller overnight.  Little did the people realize all the principles and practice Kinsey was trying to inject into the American culture. It turned out that he wanted people to look at themselves as "animals" who had natural proclivities with tensions and urges that needed to be released by whatever means necessary.

"All of the hedonistic practices which are labeled in the Bible as an "abomination unto God" were portrayed by Kinsey and his associates as not only normal and pleasurable, but widely practiced.

"Dr. Reisman and her associates found that Kinsey's Institute had observed or been present when criminal sexual abuse was perpetrated on numerous children or pre-adolescent youth in an effort to prove that children are born with the capability of becoming fully active sexually.  (Ibid. pp.8, 29-31) The idea was to encourage their participation in sexual stimulation at an early age.  Like Freud, Kinsey recommended sex education to promote and excite sexual interest among children.

"Members of the Kinsey entourage even went further.  They felt parents or other adults should take children in hand and participate with them in sexual relations at an early age so their sexual development would mature "normally and naturally."  Their goal was to have universal sex education in the schools so the next generation would accept whatever sexual lifestyle a person might choose as entirely legitimate.

"Between Freud and Kinsey, a complete revolution occurred in the minds of the upcoming generation concerning sexual indulgence.  Traditional Christian elements in America strongly protected, but Freud's "scientific" justification, labeling promiscuity a necessity, combined with Kinsey's rigged statistics indicating that "everybody's doing it," overwhelmed the opposition as being "prudish" and "old-fashioned."

Dr. Reisman gives the following appraisal of the Freud and Kinsey legacy:  "Socially, the sexual revolution has wrought upheaval. There are about 11 to 12 million sexually active adolescents in the U.S.  About 860,000 teenagers will become pregnant this year - 23,000 aged 14 or younger.  More than 40% of pregnancies in 15 to 19-year-olds will be aborted and 60% of those in girls under 15. . . . "Between 1950 and 1968 the number of out-of-wedlock- births to teenagers almost tripled to about 165,000 per year . . . Today there will be about 230,000 births per year to women under 20 who are both poor and unmarried, a testimony to the significantly increased rates of sexual activity among teenage females." (Ibid. p.87) 

 "In this same text, we find numerous reports containing overwhelming evidence of depravity and social disintegration all across the cultural spectrum.  Official statistics show:

"Criminal sexual assaults on women increased 526% between 1960 and 1986.

"Centers for Disease Control reported 2.5 million teenagers who had sexually transmitted diseases in 1987 (excluding AIDS/HIV). AIDS, an incurable disease, has now spread among so many voters that in some areas candidates cannot be elected without their support.  The political power of the gay constituency has become so powerful that AIDS is the only highly contagious disease that has escaped quarantine regulations.

"Hepatitis B has become an epidemic among the homosexual population.  Transmission is by blood, semen, or saliva.  There are about 200,000 new infections annually in the U.S.

"Adolescent suicides have increased 300%.  In the last thirty years, crimes of violence - such as murder, robbery, rape, etc. - have increased 500%. (According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Sexual activity among teens continues to be a serious problem in the U.S. For example, in 2007, almost 48% of all adolescents age 15-19 were sexually active, 15% of those with 4 or more partners.  In 2005, about 400,000 unmarried teens had abortions.  Since 2000, an average of 8 million in the 15-24 age group become infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) each year. Since 2001, suicide has been the third highest cause of death among teens.  See and for more information.)

"The social disintegration that has taken place in America during the last half of the twentieth century is characteristic of twenty-two earlier civilizations that are now extinct. 

 "The prophets of the past who saw our day in vision warned that if a hostile Gentile culture erupted in America, it would not be endured for long.  Think of this generation already aborting more than 40 million babies.  This culture of depravity is being perpetuated by leaders and teachers who are corrupting millions of youth.

"It is clear that we are approaching the time when God's cup of wrath and indignation might overflow at any time, just as the prophets predicted."

You can buy the book HERE and it will show you what can cleanse America as well as what you can do, and it will fill you with peace as you come to realize that there IS hope and that there IS a way out of the insanity that now grips the world.