Monday, January 18, 2016


In the Making of America ("MOA") Class I lead each week, we are studying the foundational principles the Founding Fathers sought to outline and use as the secure base and foundation upon which to build the Constitution and this republic we love. This week's lesson is short but powerful, and during this presidential election year, it is also timely.

This week are studying the 13th Principle of Freedom:

"A Constitution Should be Structured to Permanently Protect the People from the Human Frailties of their Rulers"

The text reads:

"At the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers were concerned with the one tantalizing question which no political scientist in any age had yet been able to answer with complete satisfaction. The question was, "How can you have an efficient government but still protect the freedom and unalienable rights of the the people?"(1)

It goes on to explain how the Founders had much more confidence in the people than they did in any current or future elected government servants, especially when those elected servants held the power to injure the people and when those same people were blindly trusting in those servants, without taking the time to study them, study the issues, and stay on top of not only the current issues but the principles upon which this nation was founded and the principles that were driving the decisions of the elected servants, which are not always pure. 

"Two hundred years of American history have demonstrated the wisdom of the Founders in proclaiming a warning against the frailties of human nature in the people's elected or appointed leaders. Every constitutional action has usually been justified because it was for a "good cause." Every illegal transfer of power from one department to another has been excused as "necessary."  The whole explosion of bureaucratic power in Washington has been the result of "trusting" benign political leaders, most of whom really did have good intentions. Thomas Jefferson struck out with all the force that tongue and pen could muster against trusting in human nature. Said he:

"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go.... In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in  man, BUT BIND HIM DOWN FROM MISCHIEF BY THE CHAINS OF THE CONSTITUTION. (The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Annals of America, 4:65-66; emphasis added.)" (2)
  George Washington also felt strongly that it was necessary to jealousy guard our freedoms from those who hold the power over them, as the Founders looked on government as an unpredictable and "explosive" power that must be harnessed by the strict ENUMERATED delegated powers of the Constitution. He said: 

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. (Quoted in Jacob M. Braude, Lifetime Speaker's Encyclopedia, 2 vols. [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pentice-Hall, inc, 1962], 1:326.)" (3)
Have you ever really taken time to stop and think what the real purpose of the Constitution is? It is to define the very limited area within which government leaders within all three branches of the federal government can work. Their powers are purposely ENUMERATED - that means limited, and numbered, to NO MORE than those that are listed in the Constitution.

"In ever human being there is a natural tendency to practice Parkinson's law of perpetual expansion and to exercise personal proclivities toward ego-mania and self-aggrandizement." (4)  That means our human nature leads us to be ego-centric and power-grabbing to make ourselves bigger, better, more powerful, more everything - to be on "top". 

Because of this, it is necessary to confine our elected leaders, because we are delegating them our own power over ourselves and over our money. Can you imagine what that could end up being like if these people went unchecked?

James Madison wisely said:

"It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices [as Constitutional chains] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?...If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government should be necessary. [But lacking these,] in framing a government which is to be adminsitered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: YOU MUST FIRST ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE GOVERNED; AND IN THE NEXT PLACE OBLIGE IT TO CONTROL ITSELF. (Federalist Papers, No. 51, p.322; emphasis added.) (4)
There are many I've heard over the past 20-40 years claim that the Constitution is outdated, that it was written by men who could never have known our day, that these men only lived and knew what an agrarian society was like and even that the Constitution was obsolete because social and economic conditions have changed so much.  HOWEVER, the Founders were much wiser than we could even begin to imagine today. We simply to not have the level of their logic, wisdom, and education today which they had under their belt already by the time they wrote the Constitution. 

Here is WHY THE CONSTITUTION WILL NEVER BE OBSOLETE: It was designed to control something which has not changed and will not change. Namely HUMAN NATURE.

The Founders knew from experience that our gradual loss of freedom through the erosion of Constitutional principles is not always so obvious that the people can readily detect it. Madison stated:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations... This danger ought to be wisely guarded against." (Elliot, Debates in the State Conventions, 3:87.) (5)

So - when erosions come, what do we do? We take IMMEDIATE steps to halt it!  Said James Madison:

"It is proper to take alarm at the FIRST EXPERIMENT ON OUR LIBERTIES. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. THE FREEMEN OF AMERICA did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences [of governmental abuses] in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle [on which the abuses were based]. We revere this lesson too forget it. ("Memorial and Remonstrance," in Rives and Fendall, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, 1:163; emphasis added.) (6)
SO.... Mankind has so many unalienable rights, they cannot possibly be listed in the Constitution nor elsewhere. We cannot even keep a jealous eye on every single one 100% of the time. So the mind asks, "Is there one right, above all others that we should guard first and foremost?"   The Founders said there is. They said we should concentrate on the preservation of one particular right, because this right is the "umbrella" over all other rights. And what is this "umbrella right"?


"Life and Liberty are Secure Only So Long As The Right to Property Is Secure." - the 14th Principle of Freedom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.) W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, p.163
2.) ibid., p. 164
3.) ibid., p. 165
4.) ibid., p.166
5.) ibid.
6.) ibid., p.166-67

Tuesday, January 12, 2016


This article was published January 10, 2016 in The New American and hits the nail on the head. Our American “government schools” (aka: public schools), including our public universities, and many private universities, are all part of this agenda. Read on for a jaw-dropping piece of what it took to get into college in the mid-1700’s! No one today could hold a candle to any one of our Founding Fathers when it comes to not only their level of education but the wisdom they gained with it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Printed here in part. For full original post:
January 8 was the 226th anniversary of the very first State of the Union address delivered by (no surprise here) George Washington.
The requirement that the executive deliver such a report is set out in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which reads in relevant part, “He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
Our first president delivered his premier presentation to members of Congress gathered in New York City. The speech was short — the shortest in history, coming in at just over 1,000 words — and didn’t feature any of the pomp and protocol associated with the modern versions of the event.
In contrast, the length of Barack Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address was 6,718 words. 
While that is some six times longer than Washington’s first address, both of these reports were practically memos compared to President Harry S. Truman's 1946 State of the Union address, which ran 25,000 words, or the final (1981) address of Jimmy Carter, who went out in a blaze of glory, going on for 33,667 words! (Fortunately, the latter address was written, not spoken.)
The topics covered today, of course, are much more varied and cover much more ground than anything Washington would ever include in his incipient address. It is the content, though, where we might learn a little more about the audience than about the speaker.
Taking George Washington’s first State of the Union and Barack Obama’s first State of the Union as samples, the author of this article ran the first three paragraphs of both discourses through an application that analyzes the readability level of any text. The results reveal less about Washington and Obama and more about the relative literacy of those to whom they spoke — the people and the people’s representatives in Congress.
More accurately, the Web-based application analyzes the selected text and reveals the grade level that one would have to have reached in order to understand the vocabulary used in the text. The website explains the scale this way:
A grade level (based on the USA education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. A score of around 10-12 is roughly the reading level on completion of high school.
Now for the results. 
George Washington’s first State of the Union address received an average grade level score of 17.9. That means that in order to understand the vocabulary in the first State of the Union in 1790, a reader would need bachelor’s degree and nearly two years of graduate school.
As for Barack Obama’s first address, the reader would need a vocabulary equal to that of someone in the second semester of the ninth grade.
Some will view the wide gulf between the sophistication of the language used in these speeches as somehow indicative of the education or vocabulary of the lectors. I don’t think that is the most important takeaway of these results, however.
For several generations now, Progressives have manipulated the curriculum and standards applied to elementary and secondary schools. These “reforms” have left the American people less well-read and less literate generally than their ancestors whose education was less formal, but far more ambitious and arduous than anything even offered in the most challenging schools today.
Whether at home or in a schoolhouse, the goal of education in the early days of our nation was to instill virtue in the students. The Founders were taught that free societies were sustained by a virtuous populace, and that, if a society were to abandon a study of the classics, that same society would eventually abandon the virtues championed by the classical authors.
Teachers concentrated their lessons on the works of those classical authors on which students would be tested prior to admission to college. A brief survey of the entrance requirements for colonial colleges will testify to the enlightenment of our Founding Fathers — as well as to the astounding decline in the educational standards of our day.
In 1750, Harvard demanded that applicants be able to extemporaneously “read, construe, and parse Cicero, Virgil, or such like classical authors and to write Latin in prose, and to be skilled in making Latin verse, or at least to know the rules of Prosodia, and to read, construe, and parse ordinary Greek as in the New testament, Isocrates, or such like and decline the paradigms of Greek nouns and verbs.” Of note is the fact that John Trumball, the illustrious artist, passed Harvard’s exacting entrance exam at only 12 years of age.
Alexander Hamilton’s alma mater, King’s College (now Columbia), had similarly stringent prerequisites for prospective students. Applicants were required to “give a rational account of the Greek and Latin grammars, read three orations of Cicero and three books of Virgil’s Aeneid, and translate the first 10 chapters of John from Greek into Latin.”
James Madison had it no easier when he applied for entrance to the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) in 1769. Madison and his fellow applicants were obliged to demonstrate “the ability to write Latin prose, translate Virgil, Cicero, and the Greek gospels and a commensurate knowledge of Latin and Greek grammar.”
Today, by contrast, the bar is just a bit lower. 
Common Core standards require students to read less literature and more nonfiction. And, judging from the list of approved texts, it’s not the sort of nonfiction most parents would appreciate.
In his masterpiece On Liberty, renowned British philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart Mill succinctly explained the inherent problems with government schools. “A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government ... it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body,” he wrote.

.......  Click on the image or URL above to read the full article.

Monday, January 11, 2016


One of "the" drug lords or kingpin drug lord, El Chapo Guzman was recaptured because his people had contacted Hollywood to see if they could get a movie made about him. Narcissist much?

So, then I read the Mexican government is moving quickly to have him extradited to the U.S., and has already given "permission" for that.

Now, being born and raised in Mexico, I know that Mexico, no matter how horrific a crime, does not just quickly and easily hand over their criminals to another nation, and especially the U.S.

Therefore.... this entire story has me thinking: the U.S. and Mexico have something up their sleeve, and the truth of if won't likely comet to light until much later.  Why would Mexico so quickly agree to have him extradited? It's not like the U.S. nor Mexican federal governments are bastions of truth and honesty. So something is up. I just don't know what yet. But I'll be keeping my ears to the ground.

Click on the image below to read a CNN article about this recapture.