Principle Number Three
By William L. Pressgrove
“The most promising method of securing virtuous and morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.”
As with principle number two, the Founding Fathers felt that it was very important for the people of this country to be virtuous and morally strong and therefore, principle three brings to the forefront the fact that the leaders have to be the examples of that virtue and morality. Throughout this country’s history there have been those who have lead the country by the virtuous and moral example and others that have been put forth the antithetical. The Founding Fathers expressed their concern about the leadership of the country. They knew if the positions of prominence in this country ever became lucrative that it would lead those seeking for money as well as power to apply for and gain those positions.
A good look at American history reveals a cycle in which leadership has gone from those who would lead this country into socialism and those who want to return the responsibility to govern back to the states and the people. At present, the country is experiencing the closest thing to total socialism as it has experienced in the history of its current Constitution. Socialism is the modern form of tyranny. Whether that tyranny is in the hands of a king (monarchy) or Congress (oligarchy) matters little. If the idea is to control every facet of life, the “cradle to grave” concept, it is the same. Virtue and morality do not seek to control other’s lives any more than is necessary to maintain the peace and prosperity of the individual.
The responsibility of the average citizen is to search out those who can and will govern the nation in a virtuous and moral manner, returning to the people their freedom as well as the responsibility for their own lives, prosperity, and wellbeing. This principle should be one of the most followed criteria when it comes to finding leadership for the country. It is almost self-evident that individuals who are virtuous and morally upright will seek solutions to problems that will be in the best interest of the people as a whole.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Principles of Liberty (Two)
Principle Number Two
By William L. Pressgrove
“A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.”
You don’t have to look very far to find evidence of the truthfulness of this principle. There are so many laws on the books that even the district attorneys can’t keep up with them all. The courts are so packed with cases that it takes several years for them to come to trial. Students go to school with the attitude that if they don’t get “caught” they haven’t broken any rules. When they do get caught, instead of accepting the consequences, they try to run so that they can get away from those enforcing the rules. Of course they get that idea from watching high speed chases on the nightly news. These symptoms show that today’s society is just the opposite of what the principle says needs to be maintained to “survive under a republican constitution.”
The Founding Fathers knew that the only way that the rule of law would work was if the citizens were willing to obey those rules. There always have been people in our society that have been disobedient to the laws, local, state, and national, but they have always been a very small minority, now the number of perpetrators of lawlessness is increasing and the degree of seriousness of the violations is on the rise as well.
What did the Founding Fathers have in mind to maintain a virtuous and morally strong people? At the time the diversity of religions wasn’t as great. Most people in the country were Christian. Although the Founding Fathers were forward looking individuals, it is hard to conceive that they would have been able to see the religious and ethnic diversity that exists in this country today. However, in their other writings they confirmed a strong hope that this nation would remain primarily a Christian nation. Although there is a fundamental foundation in morality in most religions, some religion's understanding of morality is different from that of Christianity. Even with those differences the country would remain stronger if all would live by the moral codes of their respective religions.
The problem that has arisen is that religious morals from all religions have come under fire by those who don’t share the same ideology about a Supreme Being. This trend has placed the country in a situation where the basic foundation for law and order, the fundamental Christian religion, is under attack by those who hold no religious beliefs. The courts and government have succumbed to the insistence of the very few that “religious” morals and virtue cannot be reinforced in the public schools through religious friendly instruction. By some stretch of the imagination the court has concluded that the classroom is an extension of the hallowed halls of Congress. Because school systems receive federal funds the courts have justified their position that the first amendment applies to schools as well. David Barton author of The Myth of Separation established a connection between the social deviance, lower SAT scores and the separation of church and state ruling effecting prayer in schools. Barton's research states that ever since organized prayer was banned from schools, crime and sexual misbehavior have increased significantly as well as SAT scores have experienced a marked declined.
To resolve the problem, expose the secularist ideology for the detrimental influence it is. Students must be taught that they are responsible for their own actions. Returning the religious component to the school system would cause students to think about their actions. Helping the student understand that the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to govern a lawless people would prick their social consciences in a way that hasn't been done in 40 years. Without returning to the morality and virtue that the Supreme Law of the Land represents, this country cannot return to its former greatness.
By William L. Pressgrove
“A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.”
You don’t have to look very far to find evidence of the truthfulness of this principle. There are so many laws on the books that even the district attorneys can’t keep up with them all. The courts are so packed with cases that it takes several years for them to come to trial. Students go to school with the attitude that if they don’t get “caught” they haven’t broken any rules. When they do get caught, instead of accepting the consequences, they try to run so that they can get away from those enforcing the rules. Of course they get that idea from watching high speed chases on the nightly news. These symptoms show that today’s society is just the opposite of what the principle says needs to be maintained to “survive under a republican constitution.”
The Founding Fathers knew that the only way that the rule of law would work was if the citizens were willing to obey those rules. There always have been people in our society that have been disobedient to the laws, local, state, and national, but they have always been a very small minority, now the number of perpetrators of lawlessness is increasing and the degree of seriousness of the violations is on the rise as well.
What did the Founding Fathers have in mind to maintain a virtuous and morally strong people? At the time the diversity of religions wasn’t as great. Most people in the country were Christian. Although the Founding Fathers were forward looking individuals, it is hard to conceive that they would have been able to see the religious and ethnic diversity that exists in this country today. However, in their other writings they confirmed a strong hope that this nation would remain primarily a Christian nation. Although there is a fundamental foundation in morality in most religions, some religion's understanding of morality is different from that of Christianity. Even with those differences the country would remain stronger if all would live by the moral codes of their respective religions.
The problem that has arisen is that religious morals from all religions have come under fire by those who don’t share the same ideology about a Supreme Being. This trend has placed the country in a situation where the basic foundation for law and order, the fundamental Christian religion, is under attack by those who hold no religious beliefs. The courts and government have succumbed to the insistence of the very few that “religious” morals and virtue cannot be reinforced in the public schools through religious friendly instruction. By some stretch of the imagination the court has concluded that the classroom is an extension of the hallowed halls of Congress. Because school systems receive federal funds the courts have justified their position that the first amendment applies to schools as well. David Barton author of The Myth of Separation established a connection between the social deviance, lower SAT scores and the separation of church and state ruling effecting prayer in schools. Barton's research states that ever since organized prayer was banned from schools, crime and sexual misbehavior have increased significantly as well as SAT scores have experienced a marked declined.
To resolve the problem, expose the secularist ideology for the detrimental influence it is. Students must be taught that they are responsible for their own actions. Returning the religious component to the school system would cause students to think about their actions. Helping the student understand that the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to govern a lawless people would prick their social consciences in a way that hasn't been done in 40 years. Without returning to the morality and virtue that the Supreme Law of the Land represents, this country cannot return to its former greatness.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Principles of Liberty (One)
Principles Number One
By William L. Pressgrove
Because of the concern I have for this country’s future, I would like to share with you my feelings about the 28 “Principles of Liberty” that the Founding Fathers placed at the foundation of our country’s government as outlined in The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen. I decided to start with the first one: “The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.”
My understanding of this principle would be worthless without a definition of Natural Law. So let me give you what I understand that definition to be (most of my understanding of Natural Law comes from The 5000 Year Leap). Cicero is quoted as saying: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging, and everlasting...” (The 5000 Year Leap, p.40). So what I understand from this is that Natural Law is that law which can be applied to every situation without contradicting the natural order of things. Stephen Covey’s “law of the farm” is a prime example of Natural Law.
The rest of the principle is firmly founded on that one truth. You can’t have a sound government unless you have just human relations. You can’t have just human relations without first having immutable laws as their foundation. In essence this foundation is that every soul is just as precious to our Creator as every other soul. Each is to treat the other with the same respect and dignity that they would require of others. Without this foundation, our form of government cannot survive. Secularists would like to think that it can, but the principles of fairness and equality are only found in the fundamentals of Christianity. Take that away and there is no reason to treat each other as equals. In Christianity, equality means all are equal in the eyes of the Creator; therefore, if you deny the existence of a Creator, there is no reason to think that any individual is equal to any other because we all have different levels of intelligence, abilities, interests, physical capabilities, etc. So without this understanding of Natural Law and equality, humanity reverts back to the “survival of the fittest” mentality which would eliminate that equality.
Basically that is what is behind the first principle. Learn it and you will be able to see through the different philosophies that spout fairness, not equality is what human relations are founded upon. A prime example of this in government today is the idea that heavily graduated income tax is a fair policy and that all Americans are being treated fairly in spite of the disparity in responsibility for financing the government.
The idea that government has to bring all people onto equal financial footing for them to have “equality” is a misunderstanding of the intended meaning of “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. What was intended was that all mankind is worthy of equal respect and to be valued equally as being “endowed by their Creator” with unalienable rights. Take that foundation away and there is no need for feeling that any human being is on equal footing with any other. People become more of a commodity to be used and manipulated, yes, even enslaved if it benefits the one in power.
The Founding Fathers were inspired when they set this principle at the foundation of the liberty with which the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were endowed. We need to contemplate how important that principle is to the governance of this country.
By William L. Pressgrove
Because of the concern I have for this country’s future, I would like to share with you my feelings about the 28 “Principles of Liberty” that the Founding Fathers placed at the foundation of our country’s government as outlined in The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen. I decided to start with the first one: “The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.”
My understanding of this principle would be worthless without a definition of Natural Law. So let me give you what I understand that definition to be (most of my understanding of Natural Law comes from The 5000 Year Leap). Cicero is quoted as saying: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging, and everlasting...” (The 5000 Year Leap, p.40). So what I understand from this is that Natural Law is that law which can be applied to every situation without contradicting the natural order of things. Stephen Covey’s “law of the farm” is a prime example of Natural Law.
The rest of the principle is firmly founded on that one truth. You can’t have a sound government unless you have just human relations. You can’t have just human relations without first having immutable laws as their foundation. In essence this foundation is that every soul is just as precious to our Creator as every other soul. Each is to treat the other with the same respect and dignity that they would require of others. Without this foundation, our form of government cannot survive. Secularists would like to think that it can, but the principles of fairness and equality are only found in the fundamentals of Christianity. Take that away and there is no reason to treat each other as equals. In Christianity, equality means all are equal in the eyes of the Creator; therefore, if you deny the existence of a Creator, there is no reason to think that any individual is equal to any other because we all have different levels of intelligence, abilities, interests, physical capabilities, etc. So without this understanding of Natural Law and equality, humanity reverts back to the “survival of the fittest” mentality which would eliminate that equality.
Basically that is what is behind the first principle. Learn it and you will be able to see through the different philosophies that spout fairness, not equality is what human relations are founded upon. A prime example of this in government today is the idea that heavily graduated income tax is a fair policy and that all Americans are being treated fairly in spite of the disparity in responsibility for financing the government.
The idea that government has to bring all people onto equal financial footing for them to have “equality” is a misunderstanding of the intended meaning of “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence. What was intended was that all mankind is worthy of equal respect and to be valued equally as being “endowed by their Creator” with unalienable rights. Take that foundation away and there is no need for feeling that any human being is on equal footing with any other. People become more of a commodity to be used and manipulated, yes, even enslaved if it benefits the one in power.
The Founding Fathers were inspired when they set this principle at the foundation of the liberty with which the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were endowed. We need to contemplate how important that principle is to the governance of this country.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
How Income Tax Hurts
How Income Tax Hurts
By William L. Pressgrove
December 5, 2008
As I work with my students to help them conceptualize the significance of the ideology the Founding Fathers used as they put together the Constitution I try to cover several topics. First, I want my students to realize the Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that would provide the power and influence necessary for a central government to handle the affairs of state when dealing in areas such as international affairs, interstate commerce, national defense, the general welfare, and monetary issues. At the same time they wanted to allow the States to have the maximum degree of allowance to manage the affairs of state within their own borders. Second, I want them know that there were differences of opinion on just how strong that government should be. Some wanted it to have a very narrow interpretation with very literal meaning while others wanted a very broad interpretation with vague and malleable meaning so as to adapt it to varying circumstances.
It appears that human nature has played a significant role in just how narrow or broad the Constitution has been interpreted mainly through the different ideologies of the political parties. Depending on which major party was in power, legislation would favor the philosophy of that party. However, politics and statesmanship are not necessarily embodied in the same individual therefore, philosophy often takes a back seat to expediency, compromise, and out and out favoritism much of the time.
Sometimes a political ploy will backfire because the very smart, but sometimes not too wise politicians try to use a strategy that is the exact opposite of what they believe to put an issue before the people thinking that in no way will they embrace such an ideology. Such is the history of the Sixteenth Amendment. It was never supposed to be ratified and it was intended to put the issue of an “income tax” to rest by having the states reject it, but instead they ratified it and it changed the Constitution.
The Sixteenth Amendment was touted to be “fair” because it placed a larger portion of the burden of running the Federal Government onto the backs of the more wealthy members of society and to them that was fair. This paper is to show how that has in reality put enmity between the wealthy and the not so wealthy in this country. The rationale that will be used is the same fundamental logic used by the Founding Fathers when they put the Constitution together and attempted to set forth a plan of governance that would treat each citizen equally.
The Sixteenth Amendment the income tax was to be graduated so that the wealthy paid a larger percentage of their income to the government than the middle or lower classes had to pay. It is difficult to conceive of this as being “fair.” However, it has continued to be so ever since and at various times it has been used to garner votes from certain sectors of the populace to win elections. We have recently had an election where income tax played a major role. The masses were promised that their taxes would be reduced while those of the upper class were told that they would have to pay a larger portion of their income to support the government. How then, when the wealthy should be able to use their wealth to sway the election toward their point of view, could the election be given to those who would be the benefactors of that wealth instead? It is simple, politicians play the numbers game. When there are more people in the middle class and poorer class than there are in the upper class, the upper class would lose the election even if 100% of them voted against that politician and only a fraction (just one vote more than all the wealthy) of the middle and poor class would be needed to out-vote the upper class at the polls.
How can a situation like that ever be considered fair? Why, when they carry a major part of the burden to finance the government, dont the wealthy have more of a "say so" in what government does? They shouldn't because each voter should have just one vote. On the other hand, each person that votes should have equal responsibility for carrying the burden of financing the government. Only then can there be fairness. As it stands, the poor have no vested interest in how the country runs, except as recipients of some of the bounty government has taken from the upper class, because they don't have to pay for any of it. On the other hand the rich have a very strong vested interest because the country is running on the money they provide. However, the wealthy lack the power to influence government at the ballot box because of the sheer numbers of poor and middle class that are being marshaled to out vote them. In order to return fairness at the ballot box, all voters need to be participating equally in the expense of running the country. Equal power at the ballot box requires equal responsibility for paying government expenses. The only way to attain this kind of equality would be for each voter to be paying an equal percentage of their income as their share of the expenses of the government.
What would this accomplish? It would be the first time since the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified that the sovereign of this country, in its entirety, would have equality in their accountablity for paying the country’s bills. When there are no more “free riders” then all people would be more interested in what the revenue is being used for. Congressmen would be hard pressed to make a case of taking more from the rich and giving it to the poor to buy votes from the poor.
Emphasis would then be focused on how government spending is affecting future generations. When people begin to pay taxes they begin to realize that the National Debt is a tax on future generations and those who will have to pay that debt aren’t here to represent themselves and cry “foul, foul, taxation without representation” in the same manner that our Founding Fathers did when Great Britain was taxing them in the same manner.
One of the solutions as to how to raise the revenue needed, without having the Communistic "heavily graduated" income tax system we now have, is to do away with the Internal Revenue System and change the tax system to a national sales tax. This kind of a tax would hold each individual that earns money responsible for their fair share of the burden of government. An organization with a website that explains how this could be done fair and equitably is called fairtax.org. They have worked out every detail. They have even worked in a “prebate” system so income below the poverty line would be reimbursed for taxes paid thus removing an undue financial hardship from those living below the poverty line (however, if they buy on credit and exceed the poverty level for their size family, they would be paying tax just as everybody else has to). When I checked the difference in disposable income between what I am currently paying in income tax and the disposable income I would have with a 23% sales tax in place, I found the fair tax plan would increase my disposable income by 32%. If you check out Senate bill S-1025 which is this proposal, you might find that you are in the same boat.
By William L. Pressgrove
December 5, 2008
As I work with my students to help them conceptualize the significance of the ideology the Founding Fathers used as they put together the Constitution I try to cover several topics. First, I want my students to realize the Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that would provide the power and influence necessary for a central government to handle the affairs of state when dealing in areas such as international affairs, interstate commerce, national defense, the general welfare, and monetary issues. At the same time they wanted to allow the States to have the maximum degree of allowance to manage the affairs of state within their own borders. Second, I want them know that there were differences of opinion on just how strong that government should be. Some wanted it to have a very narrow interpretation with very literal meaning while others wanted a very broad interpretation with vague and malleable meaning so as to adapt it to varying circumstances.
It appears that human nature has played a significant role in just how narrow or broad the Constitution has been interpreted mainly through the different ideologies of the political parties. Depending on which major party was in power, legislation would favor the philosophy of that party. However, politics and statesmanship are not necessarily embodied in the same individual therefore, philosophy often takes a back seat to expediency, compromise, and out and out favoritism much of the time.
Sometimes a political ploy will backfire because the very smart, but sometimes not too wise politicians try to use a strategy that is the exact opposite of what they believe to put an issue before the people thinking that in no way will they embrace such an ideology. Such is the history of the Sixteenth Amendment. It was never supposed to be ratified and it was intended to put the issue of an “income tax” to rest by having the states reject it, but instead they ratified it and it changed the Constitution.
The Sixteenth Amendment was touted to be “fair” because it placed a larger portion of the burden of running the Federal Government onto the backs of the more wealthy members of society and to them that was fair. This paper is to show how that has in reality put enmity between the wealthy and the not so wealthy in this country. The rationale that will be used is the same fundamental logic used by the Founding Fathers when they put the Constitution together and attempted to set forth a plan of governance that would treat each citizen equally.
The Sixteenth Amendment the income tax was to be graduated so that the wealthy paid a larger percentage of their income to the government than the middle or lower classes had to pay. It is difficult to conceive of this as being “fair.” However, it has continued to be so ever since and at various times it has been used to garner votes from certain sectors of the populace to win elections. We have recently had an election where income tax played a major role. The masses were promised that their taxes would be reduced while those of the upper class were told that they would have to pay a larger portion of their income to support the government. How then, when the wealthy should be able to use their wealth to sway the election toward their point of view, could the election be given to those who would be the benefactors of that wealth instead? It is simple, politicians play the numbers game. When there are more people in the middle class and poorer class than there are in the upper class, the upper class would lose the election even if 100% of them voted against that politician and only a fraction (just one vote more than all the wealthy) of the middle and poor class would be needed to out-vote the upper class at the polls.
How can a situation like that ever be considered fair? Why, when they carry a major part of the burden to finance the government, dont the wealthy have more of a "say so" in what government does? They shouldn't because each voter should have just one vote. On the other hand, each person that votes should have equal responsibility for carrying the burden of financing the government. Only then can there be fairness. As it stands, the poor have no vested interest in how the country runs, except as recipients of some of the bounty government has taken from the upper class, because they don't have to pay for any of it. On the other hand the rich have a very strong vested interest because the country is running on the money they provide. However, the wealthy lack the power to influence government at the ballot box because of the sheer numbers of poor and middle class that are being marshaled to out vote them. In order to return fairness at the ballot box, all voters need to be participating equally in the expense of running the country. Equal power at the ballot box requires equal responsibility for paying government expenses. The only way to attain this kind of equality would be for each voter to be paying an equal percentage of their income as their share of the expenses of the government.
What would this accomplish? It would be the first time since the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified that the sovereign of this country, in its entirety, would have equality in their accountablity for paying the country’s bills. When there are no more “free riders” then all people would be more interested in what the revenue is being used for. Congressmen would be hard pressed to make a case of taking more from the rich and giving it to the poor to buy votes from the poor.
Emphasis would then be focused on how government spending is affecting future generations. When people begin to pay taxes they begin to realize that the National Debt is a tax on future generations and those who will have to pay that debt aren’t here to represent themselves and cry “foul, foul, taxation without representation” in the same manner that our Founding Fathers did when Great Britain was taxing them in the same manner.
One of the solutions as to how to raise the revenue needed, without having the Communistic "heavily graduated" income tax system we now have, is to do away with the Internal Revenue System and change the tax system to a national sales tax. This kind of a tax would hold each individual that earns money responsible for their fair share of the burden of government. An organization with a website that explains how this could be done fair and equitably is called fairtax.org. They have worked out every detail. They have even worked in a “prebate” system so income below the poverty line would be reimbursed for taxes paid thus removing an undue financial hardship from those living below the poverty line (however, if they buy on credit and exceed the poverty level for their size family, they would be paying tax just as everybody else has to). When I checked the difference in disposable income between what I am currently paying in income tax and the disposable income I would have with a 23% sales tax in place, I found the fair tax plan would increase my disposable income by 32%. If you check out Senate bill S-1025 which is this proposal, you might find that you are in the same boat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
