The Outsider

Greed!

2011-12-28T23:57:00.001-06:00

After I put forth the argument that those who are unwarranted recipients of government dole are responsible for their predicament because of they don’t take personal responsibility, I ask a couple of questions. Which person is greedier, the one who works all his life for his millions/billions or the one who covets those riches? (Keep in mind that the government takes those riches through a progressive tax system then they redistribute them to these recipients through the dole.) What would be the surest way of returning the equilibrium of the taxpayers in this country?

The first question is rhetorical. The second takes some thought into human nature. A person who is unscrupulous enough to receive an unwarranted dole from the government, doesn’t care what happens to the rest of the money the government takes in as long as he gets “his share”.

Up until the 16^th amendment and the institution of the income tax, everyone in the country paid an excise tax on imported goods. No one knew just what he or she was paying because there was no disclosure. Therefore, there wasn’t a “class warfare” based on taxes because everyone was responsible for their own upkeep and paid excise taxes on the foreign goods they purchased. (By the way, if you were so poor you couldn’t afford any foreign goods, you didn’t have any excise taxes to pay.)

Since the inception of a graduated income tax (part of the Communist Manifesto), the idea has spread that those who make more should pay a larger percentage of what they make in taxes. According to this logic, these people should have a greater say in what goes on in government than those who pay a lower percentage. Just for grins, why don’t we use something like the 3/5ths rule in reverse? Let’s give those who pay 3 times as much in taxes 3 times as many votes. Just kidding. However, on a serious note, what would happen if everyone had to pay the same percentage with no loopholes? The rich would still be paying more of the cost of government, but now those who make less would also pay, and they would have a greater sense of concern for how the government uses their tax money. I know this sounds lame, but it is human nature. If you pay for something, you have a vested interest to see that you get what you pay for.

This would do very little for those who are unwarranted dole recipients. They wouldn’t really care if they had to give back some of the money the government gives them, but for those who aren’t on the dole and now pay taxes would definitely not want to see that money go to support those who don’t do anything for what they receive. (Just a side note, if the military has to pay taxes on the tax dollars they receive in pay; shouldn’t those on the dole have to do the same?)

One option is to abolish the tax system altogether and opt for a federal sales tax on the goods consumed. Everyone would receive their entire paycheck (there would be no withholding taxes taken out). Taxes would be on new, final goods only. The same percentage is charged on the amount of each purchase. This would restore equality. Everyone would have an equal share of the responsibility for supporting the government.

I know the arguments for and against the “Fair Tax” proposal (like the one mentioned above), but none of the academic arguments take into consideration the psychological effects of paying a fair share of the government’s bills. All of a sudden, people become more conscious of where it is going and who gets it. It would do a lot to restore personal responsibility and choice as well. For a simple example, let’s say the tax is 10%. A rich man may choose to buy a $500 shirt and he pays $550 for it while the poorer man chooses to buy a $10 shirt and pays only $11 for it. Who is paying more in taxes? Even though the rich man is paying more in taxes, the poor man can feel just as proud because of what he is doing to support the government.

Somewhere down the line, someone introduced the idea that it isn’t fair to ask someone who makes a living at or below the poverty line to pay taxes. What does it do to the sense of personal responsibility toward supporting the country, when nothing is required in return for the freedoms that we enjoy? When someone gives support, they have a vested interest in the outcome. Where there is no investment, there is no interest in the outcome.

We need to ensure that everyone has a vested interest in what happens to this country. All need to have a sense of urgency in fiscal responsibility for our country. Each paying his equal fair share would do that.

Personal Responsibility the Key to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

2011-12-28T10:00:00.004-06:00

Personal Responsibility the Key to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

I recall when I was growing up that there were several times that I received something that I hadn't worked or paid for (including Christmas presents), of which I didn't take proper care. What I received became subject to abuse and neglect. However, those things I had to work for or I had to pay hard-earned money for, I would take care of and they would last a long time.

The lesson I have learned from that is that I had a sense of ownership for those things that I obtained by the sweat of my own brow. I am not alone in this. Everyone who works for what they get has a sense of responsibility toward those possessions. On the other side of the coin there are those who don't have a sense of "ownership" or responsibility for what they receive.

If you take a good look at the "projects" (government subsidized housing), you will see in almost every situation, they have been abused and neglected and have become run down. This validates my position. They are living there free or almost free therefore, they have no sense of ownership and don't feel that they have a responsibility to care for where they live.

On a grander scale, we have people who are participating in activities like "Occupy Wall Street" all over the country. They have abused the generosity of their host cities, they have even engaged in degradation of the parks and other locations where they are staying. They have also engaged in illicit activities and have abused each other. They have no sense of responsibility for their surroundings, the country who has given them the freedom to engage in protests, or themselves. These groups are mainly made up of those who haven't had to work for a living yet. They are students and others who call themselves the 99%. It makes them sound as though they have an overwhelming majority and in one sense, they have. They are engaging in the largest "project greed" that I have seen in my lifetime. They want what the "haves" have earned but they don't want to put out the same effort to get it.

A majority of our politicians, including our current president, have picked-up on this and made this "something for nothing" attitude the center of their focus of pitting the have-nots against the haves. Expounding a philosophy of because the haves have more, then they should share more, and if they don't or won't then their excess should be taken from them and be given to the have-nots.

Where this really becomes unbearable is in the fact that those that govern have concocted a legal way to do it called the income tax. Since its inception, it has been a tool to drive a wedge between the different "classes" in this country. It follows the second point of how to overthrow a capitalist system given in the Communist Manifesto. It reads: “2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

This philosophy implies that those who have more should give all but, what they need to subsist to those who don't have as much thus making them equal. How long would be, under this philosophy, before those who are working to have more stop working because what they have gained "more" through their hard work gets taken from them and given to others.

This is the very thing that our government, especially under the current president, is doing. They tax the wealthy more, and propose to tax them even more. Then they redistribute this confiscated wealth to those who haven't worked to get it through welfare programs such as Medicaid, government housing, food stamps, free meals at school, etc.

This philosophy breaks down under the realization that, just as I abused the things I didn't have to work for when I was growing up, people in general show no respect for what they receive nor for the giver when they don't have to work for it. This is the reason for the condition of the government housing projects, the food fights in the school lunchrooms, the defecation on government vehicles during the Occupy Wall Street protests and the list goes on.

The realization that personal responsibility is the only thing that guarantees the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If these things aren't worked for, then they are not unalienable. In essence, those who depend on the government for their support and well being become slaves to that government and lose their freedom to choose. They can only live where the government says they can live. They can only get medical care from where the government says they can and only the procedures approved by the government. They can only buy as much food as the government stamps buy. They can't earn more money than the government says they can otherwise they are cut off, yet it is not enough for them to live on without the government assistance.

Dickens Had It Right

2011-12-25T16:40:00.004-06:00

It is Christmas day and I sat down to watch A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens with my wife. We have watched it many times, but this time it hit me. The United Stated has been "Scrooged."

Take a close look at the relationship between the attitude expressed by many people from welfare recipients to government officials in Washington and you will see that they all think, like Scrooge, that the taxes that are paid should take care of everyone that can't or won't take care of themselves. (Can't because they failed to get the education equivalent to maintain a lifestyle that they desire or are now in need of, or won't because they have become so accustomed to having the welfare check, government housing, Medicaid and unemployment compensation that supports their lifestyle.) Initially Scrooge expresses his disdain for Christmas as a holiday of exploitation. (Which it has become in this country based on the number of people that are killed or injured just trying to be the first to get the newest Nike(R) Air Jordan (T) sneakers.)

In the end, however, Scrooge begins to see the light when he is shown "his children", "Ignorance and want." He begins to realize that just because he pays his taxes, he isn't showing the compassion that is his to show. Today, we have politicians that tout that the rich must pay their "fair share" even though thy themselves have legislated a higher percentage of taxes on income for the rich than any other class pays. At the same time they incorporate loop-holes in the tax code so that they themselves, and anyone who is rich enough to have tax lawyers working for them, won't have to pay the high percentage. Then we hear from the Oval Office that the rich aren't paying their fair share and need to be taxed even more.

At the same time those who are the recipients of the government dole are being bated into class warfare to demand that the rich pay more to sustain them in their self-indulgence. Our government refuses to take any responsibility for the financial state we find ourselves in. Those who are the major contributors to our national debt are desperate to continue the government programs which are draining our financial pot because they have promised all of this government aid to pay for the votes from the dole recipients that keep them in office. All the while government, through the medium of the Department of Education and other government agencies, are ensuring that any mention of Christ or Christmas are taken from our textbooks, schools, classrooms and many other public venues.

It took the apparition of three spirits to convince Scrooge that he needed to mend his ways. What will it take to turn an entire nation around so that we don't suffer the fate that was staring Scrooge in the face before he changed?

How do we get it back?

2011-01-02T15:18:00.003-06:00

It's been a long time since I entered a blog. I've been busy working with a group called Independence Caucus whose objective in existing is to ensure that individuals of good moral character with a solid understanding and adherence to the Constitution of the United States get elected to office. This group wants to see a return to constitutional principles in Washington DC so that this country can return to the greatness it achieved by following them.

Things that have happened that indicate to me that those who are in office are not there to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." When the leading Justice and the president elect both botch the oath of office (while the president elect has his hand on the Bible) and then laugh about it, there is something wrong. However, when the oath was repeated in private, President Obama didn't have a Bible anywhere in sight. To me that indicates one of two things. First, he wasn't sworn in in accordance with protocol that the previous presidents were sworn in with therefore his inauguration was not valid. Or, second, he intentionally left out that part because he doesn't believe, as the Pledge of Allegiance states, that this is "one nation under God." Either way it indicates to me that he never intended to adhere to his oath of office.

Since then, there have been many times in which President Obama has been quoting from the Declaration of Independence to make a point about our unalienable rights and has deliberately left out the words "by their Creator" just before "with unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This leads me to believe that he feels that unalienable rights don't come from our "Creator" but from the governing body that he is leading at the present time.

Ever since Barak Obama began "electioneering" he has always made it a point to stress his idea of "redistribution of wealth." No one has thought to ask him whether he feels that the part of the Declaration of Independence that states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" was intended to include all men. It seems to me that if all men are created equal and are endowed with the same rights, that both the poor man and rich man are entitled equally to every dollar they earn. If that is true, where does the doctrine of progressive income tax come from where the rich pay a substantially higher percentage of their income than the poorer people come from? I can answer that. It comes from the Communist Manifesto.

Now to a different but related subject. Recently I watched an old movie, The Scarlet Pimpernel. It is about the French Revolution. It explains how the common people rose up against the aristocracy and started the "French Republic." It shows how those who were in power or even suspected of having anything to do with the aristocracy were put to death by the guillotine. Now after President Obama took office General Motors was about to declare bankruptcy. President Obama stepped in and took over, gave 51% of the company to the unions and then shut down many of the dealerships that he deemed as not being viable for the future of his newly acquired "private" industry. Many of the dealerships that were shut down were not in financial difficulty, as a matter of fact, they were prosperous in spite of GM's difficulties. However, their political persuasion was different than the new "chief Citizen" and therefore their dealerships were put to the guillotine. History does repeat itself.

I could probably go on for an entire chapter of one of Stephen King's novels with things that are not right. It is abominable how this administration has been usurping the authority of the people and throwing it in our face as though they were the sovereign and we the servants. One thing we must not do, we must not fall into their trap and follow the Europeans in the riots and mayhem that is going on there. If we do, then they will take control as totalitarians and do away with the Constitution for sure. We have to remain calm and throw them out of office constitutionally, replacing them with those who know what it was intended to do. That means we have to educate the masses that have been on the dole for so long that they feel that the "government" owes them a living. That is going to be a very tricky job, but if they riot because they are not getting what they feel is their due, they will take to the streets and take what they feel is theirs from those who have been paying their way for so many years. In this instance, they turn into the totalitarian's tool to crush those of us who still feel the Constitution is the law of the land.

Not Yours to Give

2010-03-07T20:31:00.001-06:00

This true story comes from the life of Davy Crockett. It has some very important points that we all need a refresher course on.

Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and---‘
"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistakeabout it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers saythat last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
" ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowingTreasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
" ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'
" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
" ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
" ‘If I don't’, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
" ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
" 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’
" 'My name is Bunce.'
" 'Not Horatio Bunce?'
" 'Yes.’
" 'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him,before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
" ‘Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’"
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
" ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
" ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the
credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came upon the stand and said:
" ‘Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

The REAL State of the Union

2009-11-29T18:11:00.000-06:00

The REAL State of the Union
By Bill Pressgrove
November 28, 2009

The news coverage today what appears to be that of the pressing issues; health care, the wars, cap and trade, security breaches at the White House, etc. The government has been very good at misdirection and has successfully derailed news media from the central issue. It’s time to get to the bottom line.

The bottom line is this. WE owe $106 trillion dollars in liabilities or $345.131 dollars per person in this country. Now what are liabilities? Their things we have promised to pay, but were never funded. That includes $14 trillion in Social Security, $18 trillion in Prescription Drug commitments, and $73 trillion in Medicare commitments. These are all things we have promised to ourselves. The National debt (money we already owe) is over $12 trillion and climbing. All of these things add up and then you add the fact that the government printing office is in operation 24/7 printing more fiat money (fiat means there’s nothing to back it up) with no end in sight, we are digging ourselves into a deeper hole. (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

There is something we can do to end this downward spiral into becoming the poorest of the third world countries, but it will be painful and it will seem unjust to those who are legitimately entitled to it. To others who have become accustomed to living off the government without ever having lifted a finger to earn any of what they receive, this will seem like a declaration of war on their way of life. Yet think about it.

Everything that government is trying to do is focused on maintaining and expanding the “entitlements” that have been promised over the past 75 years. Each entitlement out pacing the previous to ensure those who propose and support them will be re-elected the next election. WE have been lulled to sleep by these promises of a utopian way of life in which all of us receive whatever we need without ever having to take thought of where it is coming from. There is a substantial number of our citizens that look to the government for their sustenance, housing, and medical care without ever giving a thought as to where the government gets its money from. Very few people think about the fact that the government cannot give anything to anyone that it has not first taken away from someone else. Think about that—government cannot give anything to anyone that it has not taken away from someone first.

Looking at the National Debt, and the unfunded liabilities this country has, it seems that government has not only spent all the money it has taken from those who pay taxes today, but has promised this generation monies they plan on taking from our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for three and four generations yet to come. That seems to be robbery to me. Those yet unborn have no voice in this debt they are being saddled with. There are two things that we can do that would bring this debt back into perspective.

First, we can stop promising people more money, programs, and the easy life. They will have to suffer as our ancestors did or any of us should when we don’t make any attempt to provide for ourselves. That means there would be no more money handed out by the government to those who are receiving now without working for it.

Second, we can cut off the programs that are unfunded. Yes that would mean that we would all have to bite the bullet and start being self-sufficient again, instead of relying on the unfunded programs that are now paying our way. This would cause a reversal in the trend toward total dependency on the government. This process began with a simple “retirement” fund about 80 years ago but has, for some, grown into total dependence.

Well there you have it. The bottom line is we can abolish $106 trillion in unfunded liabilities we’ve promised to ourselves. Then with a balances budget with a substantial payment toward the National Debt, not just making the interest payments, but tightening our belt so that government could then put about $500 billion chunk against the principle as well. We could be out of debt within a generation.

The other thing that needs to be done that would directly affect the payment of the National Debt would be to scrap the current graduated income tax (which is taking from the rich a disproportionate amount of income in the tax) and replacing it with a National Sales Tax that would tax consumption and not income. (There are some intricacies in this proposal that will have to wait for another time, but to get a good idea of such a tax go to http://www.fairtax.org.) This would free up revenue for investment in new companies or expansion of existing ones so that the economy can grow again. (More companies, more employment. More employment, more tax payers. More tax payers, more revenue. More revenue the debt goes away.)

This will require all of us to sacrifice and to shift our paradigm from one of having government security to one of personal responsibility. We need to either become our own personal finance planners or hire someone to do it for us. It’s not the government’s job to provide us with all our needs in our old age. Looking at it, the government isn’t planning on doing too good of a job taking care of our “health” in old age anyway so why trust it to them?

While We Are Watching The Right Hand

2009-10-10T19:48:00.002-05:00

While We Are Watching The Right Hand

I don’t know what would be the best way to approach this subject, but what if I were to tell you that in order for you to pay what you owe for all the benefits we get and what the government is spending right now without a health care overhaul, it would be $349,190.00. That is for all the citizens of the United States, all 300 million of us.

If you do the math, and figure out how much it would cost just the tax payers according, CNN Money.com that would be 156.3 million in 2008 instead of all 300 million of us, we would owe $670,230.33 per tax payer. Now I’m going to ask the real hard question, do you think that you can come up with that much money to fix the current financial situation of the U.S. government and balance the books? Even if we just balanced the budget, we have fiscal exposures totaling $107 trillion. Fiscal exposure is the total of all unfunded mandates, such as; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drug programs, and the interest on the national debt.

So while we are watching the right hand playing around with the national health care debate, and even contemplating adding to the fiscal exposure, the real problem is not being addressed or maybe it is being deliberately suppressed. This country is being bankrupted by those we have put into office over the past 50 years. It isn’t a party issue because both parties have been a “party” (no pun intended) to this systematic process. Ever since the Social Security “Trust Fund” was done away with and the funds it produced have been used to supplement the general fund, several similar programs have been initiated like Medicare, Medicaid, and most recently the Prescription Drug Assistance Program. Each of these is either under taxed or unfunded which means it is a drain on the Fiscal Budget of the United States each year. In other words, because these programs make up more than 61% of the budget each year, there is little left for National Defense or any other government purpose and we end up running deficits.

Here’s where the rubber meets the road. I’m 60 years old. I’m one of the “baby boomers”. I have paid into Social Security all of my adult life and Medicare ever since its inception. I can see the handwriting on the wall. If we want to bring this problem under control, the promises that have been made by politicians for so many years to get us to vote for them are going to have to be broken or we are going to cease to be the United States of America. Those who own our debt will mandate changes in our Constitution that will subjugate us to their will, i.e. socialism or even worse communism. We are headed for slavery of the worst kind because we aren’t willing to face up to the fact that if we don’t take the measures we need to take and keep from going bankrupt, we will be at the mercy of our international creditors (mainly China).

We need to bite the bullet and realize that politicians have duped us into thinking that “government” will take care of us in our old age when in reality they have just stolen the money from us and have used it to keep themselves in office instead of doing what is “for the best” of the country. We need to put individuals in office that can make the hard decisions on cutting these unfunded mandates or our fiscal exposure so that our posterity can live in a country that is still free. We need to say, “I will sacrifice so that my posterity can live in freedom.” Maybe if we do, they won’t ever make the same mistake that we have of relying on politicians to take care of us instead of being self-reliant.

I know that this won’t be a very popular paper, but if we are honest with ourselves and if we care for your children and grand children for generations, we will see that we are going to have to be the ones that sacrifice our retirements, free medical for the aged, and a national health care system for everyone just so our posterity can have freedom. In other words, we can’t have our cake and eat it too. May the Lord help us in making the tough decisions we are being forced to make now.

What do You Think?

2009-07-17T23:47:00.000-05:00

I'm quite tired of the discussions on the news about health care. I haven't heard anyone who is supposedly reporting the news bring up the question, "Where in the Constitution does it say that citizens of the United States are 'entitled' to health care or any other social benefit program?"

I'm 60 and, according to all those who are steeped in the social programs dogma, so in five years I should be happy to have the government take care of me for the rest of my life, but I'm not. Those who founded this country were not just spouting words when they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for themselves and their postereity. However, here is where the rub is.

Many people want to have their cake and eat it too. Saying they want liberty and yet want the government to supply them with state run health care, or retirement, or housing, or food. If they want liberty, they have to accept the unalienable RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with unalienable rights! I realize that my position means that I might die before I really want to, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee me longevity beyond my natural lifespan by paying for my medication, health care, or even a stay in a nursing home for my last few years. So what makes so many Americans shout that they want liberty, but at the same time they are pleading with their Congressmen to provide everything for them that they should be procuring for themselves? Where's the liberty in that?

Patrick Henry once said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Well I think that, just like Patrick Henry, we should strive for the former and keep on striving for it until the latter happens. When you have liberty, your quality of life will be more wholesome and so when death comes, no matter what age it might be, it will be a time of rejoicing because you have maintianed liberty throughout it, you have to have fought a good fight, you have finished your course, and you have kept the faith. Then you will truly have liberty--liberty from offense toward God or man. What more can you ask for?

The Principles of Liberty (Twenty-eight)

2009-06-14T14:15:00.001-05:00

By William Pressgrove

“The United States has a manifest destiny to be an example and a blessing to the entire human race.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 305)

This principle lays the weight of the world right on the shoulders of every American. We are to be the example of how the freedom of the individual can be safeguarded and perpetuated to the entire world. I don’t know how many Americans take the mandate of “manifest destiny” to heart and attempt to perpetuate it, but if we don’t it won’t happen.

As a history teacher, the history texts only refer to the term “manifest destiny” as the spreading of America from sea to sea. They don’t mention what that destiny entails. Students just learn that the country should spread over the continent. Some texts go so far as to say that the “imperialism” that was engaged in as America acquired several islands in the Pacific Ocean is a part of that manifest destiny. I think that something is missing from these text books.

It isn’t the acquisition of territory that is the manifest destiny of this country. The Founders had a much greater objective in mind. I have no doubt that they envisioned the boundaries of the country eventually spreading across the continent, but I feel that their vision extended far beyond the boundaries of the continent. Their vision was that the principles of liberty would catch on and spread throughout the world. To a certain extent they have. However, each country that has adopted them has had their own vision because they had different perspectives of the principles. They each went through a different set of circumstances to get to the point where they were willing to adopt a Constitution similar to ours. Their different paradigms made it so that they interpreted the principles differently than the Founders did. So to a certain extent they were disadvantaged by their “differences of understanding.”

As time has passed, we have not been the best of examples of how freedom should work because we have allowed incorrect principles to creep into our own government. For a simple example of how that has happened, I would like those of you who are old enough to remember the 4th of July when you were young (back in the 50’s and 60’s). I had more fun by exploding firecrackers in my front yard. So did every other kid whether they lived in town or not. The parents were responsible for the safety of their children and to take care of any misfortune that happened. As I got older, “government” started placing more and more restrictions on the use of fireworks to the point where now the area in which a person can explode fireworks is sterile and uninviting and parents don’t have to supervise their children because the fire department is right there to take care of any incidents. This scenario has played out in many different facets of life.

The freedoms that we were supposed to exemplify to the world have been swallowed up in the bureaucratic red tape of a government that has grown “too big for its britches.” There is a reason for this. We the people, either through being duped or by our own choice, have lost control of our lives by first giving control of the things we didn’t necessarily want to do for ourselves to the government and then as the government grew and became “an entity unto itself,” it began to take more freedoms away than just the things we didn’t want to do for ourselves. Now we find that government wants to “care” for us from “cradle to grave.” I’m sure the Founding Fathers never envisioned the government the way it is today. Well maybe I’m wrong in thinking that because the Founders put the 28 principles of liberty in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to safeguard us from the very type of government we have today.

This brings up the question, how did we get from where we were the example of freedom to the world to a people enslaved by debt, state and federal regulations and are now less free than some of the tribes in Africa are? The one constant in the writings of the Founding Fathers was expressed by John Adams:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. Vol. IX, p. 229 October 11, 1798.)

So as you can see, we have been relieved of two of the most fundamental principles the Founders of our government placed there to ensure its perpetuation. “A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.” (Principle 2) “Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.” (Principle 4)

Many may say, “What does religion and virtue have to do with freedom?” With a cursory examination, the answer comes from the observation of those who maintain a religiously moral and virtuous life versus those who choose not to maintain such a life. Which one is most likely to be involved in activities that are in violation of the law? It’s that simple. Virtue and morality, taught mainly through religion, require self-discipline on the part of the individual and therefore, that same self-discipline leads one to live by “the rules” in society.

In order to return to being the example to the world to fulfill the natural “manifest destiny” of our country, first we need to return to being a nation that is guided by the virtue and morality of religious precepts. No matter what religion one belongs to, living by the precepts taught, the individual can’t help but be moral and virtuous. My sincere prayer and desire is that we can regain those principles before it is eternally too late.

Principles of Liberty (Twenty-seven)

2009-06-06T20:46:00.002-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Twenty-seven)

By William Pressgrove

“The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 291)

If there is a principle that is more timely to discuss than this one at this time, I can’t find it. The Founding Fathers warned us about going into debt either on an individual level or as a country. Because of the relevance of Dr. W. Cleon Skousen’s work, I will be almost exclusively sighting The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen pp. 293-302. Therefore I don’t take any credit for this content but defer to Dr. Skousen all credit for the content.

“Slavery or involuntary servitude is the result of either subjugation by conquest or succumbing to the bondage of debt.”

“Debt, of course, is simply borrowing against the future. It exchanges a present advantage for a future obligation. It will require not only the return of the original advance of funds, but a substantial compensation to the creditor for the use of his money.”

When discussing debt and splurge spending Dr. Skousen states, “...all the reveling and apparitions of debt-financed prosperity disappear like a morning mist when it comes time to pay. Extravagant living, waste, and hazardous borrowing against the future can reduce the best of us to bankruptcy, abject poverty, and even gnawing hunger from lack of the most basic necessities of life.”

“The kind of frugality for which the Founders were famous was rooted in the conviction that debt should be abhorred like a plague. They perceived excessive indebtedness as a form of cultural disease.”

Dr. Skousen quotes Benjamin Franklin with these words: “But, ah, think what you do when you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty. If you cannot pay at the time, you will be ashamed to see your creditor; you will be in fear when you speak to him; you will make poor pitiful sneaking excuses, and by degrees come to lose your veracity, and sink into base downright lying; for, as Poor Richards say, the second vice is lying, the first is running in debt.”

When discussing the Founders’ policy concerning a National Debt Dr. Skousen points out, “The pioneers of the American commonwealth had the wisdom born of experience to know that the debts of a nation are no different from the debts of an individual. The fact that the indebtedness is shared by the whole people makes it no less ominous.” He also quotes Thomas Jefferson who said, ‘I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.’”

The topic of one generation imposing its debt on the next brought forth the following expression. “...the American Found Fathers...felt that the wars, economic problems, and debts of one generation should be paid for by the generation which incurred them. They wanted the rising generation to be genuinely free—both politically and economically. It was their feeling that passing on their debts to the next generation would be forcing the children of the future to be born into a certain amount of bondage or involuntary servitude—something for which they had neither voted nor subscribed. It would be in a very literal sense, ‘taxation without representation.’”

When looking at the history of the national debt, the following becomes very apparent. “By carefully tracing the pattern of these debts, we notice that after every war or financial emergency involving heavy indebtedness there was an immediate effort to pay it off as rapidly as possible. This policy was followed for the sake of the rising generation. The adult citizens of America wanted their children born in freedom not bondage.”

Now see if what Dr. Skousen sets forth next doesn’t sound like what is going on today. “Beginning with the era of the Great Depression, all three branches of the federal government used the climate of emergency to overstep their Constitutional authority and aggressively undertake to perform tasks not authorized by the Founders. Extensive studies by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman have demonstrated that every one of these adventures in non-Constitutional activities proved counter-productive, some of them tragically so.

“Secondly, the people were induced to believe that these serious aberrations of Constitutional principles would provide a shortcut to economic prosperity, thereby lifting the people out of the depression. It gave the people the illusion that by spending vast quantities of borrowed money they would prosper, when as a matter of fact, the outcome was exactly the opposite, just as the Founders had predicted.

“Dr. Milton Friedman points out that after the federal government had spent many billions of dollars and had seriously meddled with the Constitutional structure of the nation, the unemployment rate was higher in 1938 than it had been in 1932.”

As Dr. Skousen discusses spending in our generation (keep in mind this book was originally written in 1981) he expresses the following: “For the first time in the entire history of the United States, a generation of Americans is squandering the next generation’s inheritance.”

Dr. Skousen then makes this comparison. “It is the very essence of human nature to pursue this disastrous course once the appetite has been created to demand it. American taxpayers now discover themselves playing a role almost identical to that of an addict on hard drugs. The addict denounces his ‘habit’ and despises the ‘pusher’ who got him into it, but when he is confronted with the crisis of needing a ‘fix’ he will plead with tears of anguish for the narcotic remedy. The ‘fix’ of course, is not the remedy at all. The real remedy is withdrawal.”

Polemics (arguments) against the government’s profligate spending are vehement. The denunciation of high taxes is virtually universal. From banker to ditch-digger it is eloquently explained how this entire syndrome of big spending, high taxes, oppressive government regulations, and mountainous debt is stifling the economy, inhibiting the rate of production, and stagnating the wholesome development of the traditional American life-style. Yet, with all of that, any Congressman will verify that it has been...almost political suicide to try to change the trend. When it comes to cutting programs and reducing costs, balancing the budget, and eliminating deficit spending, it is amazing how few will make the necessary adjustment without the most violent outcries of protest when it affects them personally. But then, this would come as no surprise to the Founders. It is called ‘human nature.’”

I know this is long and it uses many quotes from the book, but each point is vital to an understanding of what is going on today. The people of this country need to learn this and, like the addict, we need to kick the habit instead of getting another “fix” like the Federal Government advocates.

The Principles of Liberty (Twenty-six)

2009-05-30T17:01:00.001-05:00

By William Pressgrove

“The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore, the government should foster and protect its integrity” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 281)

If there has been one thing that has been under fire in our country for—well ever since I was in high school—it has been the family. History will bear out the truth that up until that time (around 1967) religious moorings had been the stabilizing force that kept the family ergo the country together. It was around that time that the court system determined that prayer in schools was a violation of the Constitution. “The family that prays together, stays together” wasn’t just a hollow euphemism but a statement of fact. It is hard to have a violent domestic disturbance and then turn around and say, “Okay, let’s have family prayer now” or vice versa, have family prayer and then beat the wife and kids before they go to bed.

When I think of this, two things come to mind. First, as long as the Christian religion has played a significant role in our country, the country has continued to prosper, and second, every time there has been a crisis, there is a resurgence of prayer in the country. Seems to me that even with the lack of prayer is schools people innately turn to God in prayer when there is a crisis like they know that the only reason we don’t have prayer in schools is because the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional.

The entire chapter on the twenty-sixth principle refers to unity of the family. It sets up the nature of relationships within the family, the biblical promises made concerning members of the family as they honor those relationships, and the responsibilities of family members toward each other.

To ignore the power that comes from a family unit that has a quadrilateral, (the book says trilateral, but I would interject quadrilateral, meaning not only the father, mother and children, but adding God into the equation as well), relationship is to ignore the fundamental building block that makes society a more cohesive body.

The decline in the power and influence of the family in society started with a decline in the belief in God. I guess you might say that the only reason humanity has families is because of their belief in God. If we had descended from the primates, wouldn’t we have a social order that more closely resembles that of the primates? Where would we have come up with a social order with an ordinance such a marriage as being part of it if we weren’t created by God? That in and of itself makes one wonder how evolutionists sustain their belief in that part of the theory, but that’s a topic for another essay.

In regard to the moral and religious decline in this country, it seems to be a downward spiraling event. The less moral and religious families are, the more government steps in and intervenes and the more government intervenes the less moral and religious families become. It has gotten to the point where it seems that bureaucrats in government feel that our offspring are really the property of the state and that the parents are only allowed to care for the state’s property until it are old enough for the state to exploit it. However, if you are suspected of mistreating the states property, the state comes in and takes it away from you and pays someone else to raise it until the government can properly exploit it. But we still have our freedom, right?

As long as this country continues down the road to socialism, the family unit becomes less stable and unified. I don’t know whether it would be more correct to say that; the only way to regain the Constitutional freedom this country once had is to bolster the family or the reciprocal where the only way to bolster the family is to regain the Constitutional freedom we once had. It might be more correct to say they go hand in hand and both have to be achieved together. Government has no need to step in when families are close knit and functional and the more functional and close knit the families are, the more involved they are in preserving or restoring the principles of liberty to their rightful status and stature. We need to do both or we will lose all the freedom we now have.

Personally, I feel more like a slave now than I have ever felt in my life. I also feel that my posterity will, if this trend is allowed to continue, be more enslaved and less like families than I and my children have been. It’s time to step up to the plate and do our part to restore our country’s greatness. This can only be done by replacing those who are making the laws that are enslaving us. We need to reverse Henry David Thoreau’s statement and have thousands “striking at the root” and let the leaves fall where they may, we can clean the leaves up later after the infested tree is cut down and made into something useful like firewood.

The Principles of Liberty (Twenty-five)

2009-05-23T13:41:00.000-05:00

By William Pressgrove

“‘Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.’” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 267)

One of the things I’m most sure of is that Washington and Jefferson were right when they warned America about “entangling alliances.” The warning was not just for government; however, it was for our businesses and entrepreneurs as well. World War I wasn’t a “world” war until the major powers came to the aid of their smaller “allies” and then the super powers jumped in to assist their allies the major powers.

The producers in our country helped it along by assisting our allies with weapons that weren’t being supplied to the opposition. The opposition, in order to protect themselves, attacked the supply ships that were bringing those weapons to the allies and so on until American Troops ended up in the middle of the fray in Europe.

World War II essentially began because of economics in Europe. Germany was in bad shape trying to pay back the war debt from WWI. That gave Hitler the opportunity that he needed to “talk” Germany into the expansion that eventually fueled WWII. However, this time the provocation that caused America to enter the war was that of an expanding Japanese empire (again another entangling alliance this time with Hitler and Mussolini). If you take a close look at it Japan was looking for raw materials they needed to boost their economy. The U.S. stood in the way of that expansion so they attacked us.

Today however, we have more entangling alliances than we have ever had. Government has directly opposed this sage advice by establishing “most favored trade” status with countries like China. Doing so means that other countries are slighted and their economies affected. Washington put it this way:

“In the execution of such a plan [of how to treat other nations] nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and interest.” (Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 35:231 as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen, p.269)

As we can see, when we walk through the aisles of almost any department store, most of the items for sale are made in some other country (at Walmart it is difficult to find items made in the USA, most are made in China). This kind of “alliance” has led us to a dependency on foreign goods because our manufacturing has moved overseas.

Some may say we need to get out of the world market and go back to making everything right hear which would equate to the isolationism that Skousen talks about. That would only serve as an incubator for animosity against the U.S. by other countries. We can see how that has been detrimental to balance by looking at North Korea today. They have maintained their isolationism and because of it, and the communistic philosophy of its leaders, it has proven to be an economy killer.

The idea the Founding Fathers had was to keep our noses out of the political affairs of other countries at the same time maintain an open economic intercourse with all nations. That is what they termed separatism.

As it is, we have become so entangled in world affairs that those in power feel that, just like our; auto, insurance, and banking industries, there are countries that are just too big and too “important to fail.” So we buy their friendship with our “liberal” handout programs called “foreign aid” so that they can continue their “pursuit of happiness” at the peril of our own.

I feel as Washington did that this country was founded with the aid of Divine Providence and that He sustains all those who worship Him. Washington summed it up well when he said:

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.” (Ibid.)

One of the things I perceive more and more from our society, in its search for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” is that it tends to try to force people to have it. Our country as well has engaged in forcing other countries into “democracy” when we should be leaving well enough alone and providing the best example of a democratic republic. In our own country, we have courts ordering 13 year-olds to undergo chemotherapy for cancer when they have chosen not to receive it. Does the state own that individual? Will the state be eternally damaged if the young man chooses an alternative treatment and passes away from it? This same philosophy is what causes us to enter into “entangling alliances” with other countries whether those allinaces are political or economic (NAFTA for example).

The Principles of Liberty (Twenty-four)

2009-05-16T09:46:00.001-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Twenty-four)

By William Pressgrove

“A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 260)

When I first read this principle, I wasn’t as involved in political activism as I now am. I thought I was a good citizen because I would research the candidates I could, finding whatever material I could about them, and then going to the poll and voting my conscience. Which means when I first read this principle I just viewed it very superficially. I only thought of the information in the context of protecting our country from those who would destroy it from without.

Upon reading it this time, it hit me right between the eyes. All the references used can also be applied to those elements that are seeking to destroy it from within. (Note: All the references in this essay will be to the writings found in The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, pp.260-265—including the embedded references he makes to writings of the Founding Fathers.)

Does this first paragraph strike a chord with you like it did with me?

A free people in a civilized society always tend toward prosperity. In the case of the United States, the trend has been toward a super-abundant prosperity. Only as the federal government has usurped authority and intermeddled with the free-market economy has this surge of prosperity and high production of goods and services been inhibited.

He goes on to say that this prosperity also draws the attention of “the greedy aspirations of predatory nations.” “Before the nation’s inhabitants are aware, their apocalypse of destruction is upon them.” The first copy write on this book was in 1981. How prophetic were these words? It seems that we are in that very situation right now.

The theme throughout the chapter about this principle is that after all we can do to prepare for our own defense we have to rely on “Divine Providence” as our Founders did in their war for independence. The Founding Fathers were not threatened as much from within as we are today, so most of their writings reflected being prepared for enemies from without. Even with that, many of the statements they made apply to our situation today. Ben Franklin said, “Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.” I fear that this is just what has happened.

We have trusted in those who we have, either by vote or neglecting to vote, placed in positions of responsibility in our government. I’d just like to ask how much you feel our Senators and Representatives are representing us when they only have a 9% approval rating according to the polls? At the same time 94% of them are being re-elected to office. (Statistics from the Independent Caucus organization) I asked myself how could that be? How could they have such a poor approval rating and yet be re-elected in such great numbers.

The answer came to me as I was teaching my students at school. They are masters of the strategy “divide and conquer.” You see, there are 535 members of Congress counting both the House and the Senate. Each Representative provides earmarks for his District and Senators do the same for big projects in their State. When it comes time to be re-elected, they all begin pointing fingers at all the other districts and saying that the problems in Congress are because of all the other Representatives and Senators. At the same time they play on the greed of those in their districts by reminding them just how much money they have brought into their district from the federal coffers. So we “make ourselves sheep, and the wolves” are eating us.

None of these “career politicians” ever mentions that the money to pay for the earmarks and pork barrel projects is part of a deficit budget that will be added to the National Debt. They don’t bother saying that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to the fourth and fifth generation will be paying for the amenities that we enjoy today. They don’t tell you of the troubled times we have ahead that will mean a standard of living for our posterity that will be much lower than ours because their inheritance has already been spent.

Our Founding Fathers were no dummies. They were very well versed in the flaws of human nature because they had been first hand witnesses of those flaws in the form of the government they fought to liberate themselves from.

However, our biggest enemy has four heads. First, we have the sleeping giant of apathy that we need to awaken to a sense of duty. Second, we have ignorance that keeps people from knowing about what is truly happening. Third, we have a narcissistic greed that prevails in the poorer sector that allows them to think that it is okay to take the hard earned money from a working person and give it to those who don’t work. And fourth we have an enormous sense of individuality that keeps us from unifying and focusing on one ultimate goal. It is too easy to focus on the immediate bills and injustices that are coming from Washington. We can solve a majority of those problems by replacing the incumbents with statesmen willing to do the bidding of the people. If we devote our energy to the individual causes of bills we see need to be opposed or passed, we sap the strength from striking at the root causes of those bills—special interest paid incumbents.

In conclusion, there is an old adage that says, “Work like everything depends on you and then pray like everything depends on the Lord.” You won’t find it in many modern history books but this is just what the Founding Fathers did. They worked like their future depended on them and then they prayed like it all depended on “Divine Providence.” They knew that our future depended on our moral strength and virtue. Samuel Adams wrote, “It is the business of America to take care of herself; her situation, as you justly observe, depends upon her won virtue.” May we find the moral strength and virtue among us to unify to rectify the government and return it to the correct principles it was founded on. This is my prayer. May you all be working and praying toward the same end.

The Principles of Liberty (Twenty-three)

2009-05-09T12:17:00.001-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Twenty-three)

By William Pressgrove

“A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 249)

Although this seems like a somewhat benign principle, it turns out that it is the foundation of all the others. Without it, the Founding Fathers would not have been able to gather the information from scholars like Moses, Locke, Blackstone, and English Common Law to formulate the principles that appear to be much more significant to the founding of this country.

From the annals of history as far back as 1647, as chronicled by Cleon Skousen, there are accounts of legislatures passing laws like in Massachusetts where it was established that wherever there was a body of 50 families it was required for them to set up a “free public grammar school to teach the fundamentals of reading, writing, ciphering, history, geography, and Bible study.” Skousen quotes John Adams considerably on this subject, but ends with this quote, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people...They have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded in envied kind of knowledge—I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.” (Koch, The American Enlightenment, p. 239, as quoted by W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, p.250.)

“In the American colonies the intention was to have all children taught the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic, so that they could go on to become well-informed citizens through their own diligent self-study. No doubt this explains why all of the American Founders were so well read, and usually from the same books, even though a number of them had received a very limited formal education. The fundamentals were sufficient to get them started, and thereafter they became remarkably well informed in a variety of areas through self-learning. This was the pattern followed by both Franklin and Washington.” (Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, p.252)

There are many more points covered, but for the sake of brevity, I’d like to weigh in the balance the educational philosophy of the era of the Constitution and that of our day.

Back then they made it mandatory to have grammar schools, but there were no compulsory attendance laws. Those who went to learn did it to improve themselves and their knowledge and understanding.

Today, it is mandatory to have the schools, and it is mandatory for students to attend. Many go because they want to learn. There are those who go because they have to but don’t want to. When they are forced to attend, more often than not, they disrupt to get attention and monopolize the time of the teacher. They draw so much of the teacher’s attention that the education of those wanting to learn suffers.

Back then the subjects were sufficient to facilitate self-learning so those who attended could continue learning while they weren’t at school. There was a desire for self improvement.

Today, don’t even think of requiring students to do homework (self-learning). I require it but, even when if the student’s grade depends on them doing their homework, they just complete the bare minimum required or don’t even do it at all. Procrastination seems to be the standard of today, “if I don’t pass this course this year, I’ll just take it in summer school. (Many parents today prefer them being in summer school because they have to work and there wouldn’t be anyone to watch the children during summer vacation if they didn’t send them to summer school.)

Back then morality was taught in school in the form of Bible study. The moral character was one of the most important issues.

Today, many students have been denied character building instruction to the point that they feel that if they don’t get caught, they have done nothing wrong. This can be contributed in large part to the fact that schools live by another principle, the principle of see no evil, hear no evil. So the foundation of moral training is basically where there are no consequences, there are no rules. Oh, the rules are all written down, but “It’s too much of a hassle to enforce the dress code.” “If I respect them (even if they don’t follow the rules), they respect me,” seems to be all the moral training they get from some teachers. How detrimental to moral character are these philosophies!

Schools today, because legislatures require some sort of “quantifiable justification” for spending money on them, have become more or less “diploma mills” because the “quantifiable justification” hinges on the percent of graduates the school puts out. It doesn’t matter that 20 percent of those graduates are functionally illiterate when they graduate or not, just as long as they get the diploma, the state is happy.

With that tidbit of information, how easy will it be for politicians to manipulate these “graduates” when it comes time to vote? Who benefits by an illiterate populace? After answering those questions, it should be easier to see why politicians aren’t so interested about what comes out of our high schools but how much money goes into them.

That is why this is one of the most important principles even though it seems to be either a foregone conclusion that people get an education, or a matter of insignificance when compared to the other principles, yet all the other principles hinge upon it.

The Principles of Liberty (Twenty-two)

2009-05-02T08:41:00.001-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Twenty-two)

By William Pressgrove

“A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 243)

In introducing this principle Cleon Skousen was very straight forward in stating:

“To be governed by the whims of men is to be subject to the ever-changing capriciousness of those in power. This is ruler’s law at its worst. In such a society nothing is dependable. No rights are secure. Things established in the present are in a constant state of flux. Nothing becomes fixed and predictable for the future.”

The Founders lived under the tyranny of a king and a parliament bent on the exploiting the colonies to support their lifestyles, and witnessed the uncertainty of their lives because the rules that governed the colonies changed at the drop of a hat.

That is why they set up the government so that the rule of law governed. If all had to live by the same laws, then all knew what to expect and could make future plans based on those laws. Today, can we say that we have the same assurance? We have laws governing bankruptcy, yet government says that we have companies that are “too large to be allowed to fail”, so they bail them out to avoid bankruptcy. We have laws that state that government cannot interfere in private business, yet government now owns majority shares in AIG, GM, Chrysler, and at least 23 different banking firms. So what happened to the laws regarding these issues? In essence without saying the words that “the Constitution is suspended” or “martial law is declared”, the government has suspended the laws that govern these issues. Well as Rahm Emanuel, the Whitehouse Chief of Staff said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

The last time I checked, the Tenth Amendment states that the government has no power except the power delegated to it by the Constitution. I’ve read the Constitution several times and I can’t find anywhere in it that the power to interfere in private industry/business is a power delegated to central government. So why is it being done without a declared “state of emergency” or having declared martial law?

The answer to these questions is simple. The rule of law has been suspended and like Cleon Skousen pointed out. We are being, “governed by the whims of men” and are “subject to the ever-changing capriciousness of those in power.”

The solution? We need to awaken to the awfulness of our situation. We need to realize that we are verifying what Thomas Jefferson was warning us against when he said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

We the People are the sovereign. Government has “taken power unto itself” and thinks that those who are elected or appointed have the power to force the people of the country to do as they bid. Without going too far into it, I think that they feel this way because they think the majority of the people in the country should be beholding to them because they have redistributed the wealth of the country so that they are “more equal.” Government is counting on those who have received from the government to side with them on the issues giving them a majority, or as they put it, a mandate to proceed with the socialistic plans and programs they are now trying to force into place using whatever “crisis” they can find or manufacture.

As we awaken to the predicament we are in, we need to take action. This action has to be UNIFIED. Those in power are counting on us to be fragmented and divided so that the courses of action we take will be in so many different directions that we will not be unified and be able to produce a majority when it comes time to vote. Even though there were hundreds of thousands of people who attended a TEA Party on April 15th (to which I was a party) there were many divisions among the attendants as to what the best course of action should be. The body politic is counting on us to remain fractured in deciding on a course of action to unseat them from their comfortable and lucrative positions in Congress and the White House.

The unity we are seeking can be found in the principles and values found in The 5000 Year Leap and the 9-12 Project. The course of action we must take is one that has proven to be effective and will propel our unity into effective action and is found it the Independence Caucus’ course of action. I urge all of you who are in different organizations that participated or believe in the TEA Parties as well as anyone else who believes that we are living one of Thomas Jefferson’s worst nightmares concerning government, to check out the following two websites and learn as much about them as possible. I am very confident that you will see clearly the course of action that we need to take as you learn more about what these two groups stand for. There is no reason to give up affiliation with other organizations, but in order to take the reins of government back we all need to support and work toward the objectives of these two organizations.

http://www.the912project.com
http://www.ourcausus.com

May we all succeed in our endeavors to restore the rule of law in this country.

The Principles of Liberty (Twenty-one)

2009-04-25T10:08:00.001-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Twenty-one)

By William Pressgrove

“Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 235)

“Political power automatically gravitates toward the center, and the purpose of the Constitution is to prevent that from happening. The centralization of political power always destroys liberty by removing the decision-making function from the people on the local level and transferring it to the officers of the central government. This process gradually benumbs the spirit of ‘voluntarism’ among the people, and they lose the will to solve their own problems. They also cease to be involved in community affairs. They seek the anonymity of oblivion in the seething crowds of the city and often degenerate into faceless automatons who have neither a voice nor a vote.” (W. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 235)

When I read this paragraph, it hit me right between the eyes. There couldn’t be a more fitting description of what our society has slipped into. It seems that many in our society don’t want to get involved unless there is some sort of crisis for them to respond to. The Constitution was written to afford all members of society the opportunity to hold the reins of freedom in their hands and to give them the responsibility of maintaining it through involvement in the political process.

It appears that instead of being involved, we have abdicated the responsibility to govern to “professional” politicians who are just as susceptible to the enticements of money and power as any of us are. The Founders idea was to have a more or less “lay” government where the representatives would serve their two year term and then go back to their former occupation. Instead we have allowed individuals to homestead in their political offices. They have become comfortable in their positions and the powerful draw of fame and fortune have enticed them to entrench themselves so deeply in the “halls of Congress” that they have, like Frankenstein’s monster, “taken power unto themselves.”

In the search for that fame and fortune, the Federal Government has encroached on the rights and responsibilities of the States to take care of their responsibilities as well. Thomas Jefferson offered:
“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions he is competent to [perform best]. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.”
Jefferson continues:
“What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers unto one body, no matter whether of the aristocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of the Venetian senate.” (Both quotes are in The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 238 as quoted from; Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 14:421)

It makes my skin crawl to see what is happening today to our country because of the fiscal apathy of the general public. “Let someone else do it.” “I don’t have time to get involved.” “I’m not smart enough to be in public office, let someone who is smarter do it.” Do these phrases sound familiar? That is because they are all too common in our society. That kind of apathy and self-debasement is just what Jefferson was talking about.

John Fiske, “one of the greatest American Historians of the last generation,” prophesied:
“If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid!) when the people of different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the self-government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so closely limited as that of the counties of England—on that day the political career of the American people will have been robbed of its most interesting and valuable features, and the usefulness of this nation will be lamentably impaired.” (quoted in The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 238 as quoted from; John Fiske, The critical period of American History, 1783-1789 The Historical Writings of John Fiske, Vol. 12 [Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1916], pp. 282-283.) Although some of the wording indicates that Washington would be sending “prefects” to the States, the idea that Washington would be running the show remains the same. We need to ensure that we awaken to the “sense of our awful situation” and take steps to return the governance of our country to its rightful sovereigns.

We can in nowise regain our rights to self-government unless we are willing to take upon us the responsibilities of self-government. However, I have lately learned that taking back those rights isn’t all that easy because of the power of the incumbents. They are being supported by professional lobbyist whose sole goal is to make money by getting Congressman to support pork barrel projects and earmarks for their clients. I strongly suggest and urge all who read this to see how this is being done by visiting the Independent Caucus website: http://ourcaucus.com. I knew that something was going on in Washington, but I wasn’t aware of the extent this corruption until I went to this site and listened and read all of the points they have posted there. Their research and expertise have given them the ability to put together the facts in the most compelling argument against professional government I have ever seen. These people are the same ones who unseated an incumbent who had a huge war chest in Utah and succeeded in replacing him with someone who has the interests of the people at heart. If they can do it and we can follow their example and advice, we will be able to take back our rights to self-government and show that we are willing to take on those responsibilities.

The Principles of Liberty (Twenty)

2009-04-18T12:32:00.003-05:00

Principles of Liberty
Principles of Liberty (Twenty)

By William Pressgrove

“Efficiency and dispatch require government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 229)

This principle addresses both sides of the issue of majority rule. It first deals with the issue of what happens when more than just a simple majority is required to do business and then it deals with the rights of those who are not in the majority. Originally the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation which required a unanimous vote on all issues. That policy left the government totally inept. If the large states wanted a certain provision but the small states didn’t like it, it took just one small state voting against the proposal to stifle the provision. Therefore the larger states were held hostage to the smaller states and vice versa. There was almost nothing accomplished under the rule of unanimity because inevitably one state would object to something and vote against the proposal.

As explained by Earl Taylor in his class based on a course called American Government and U.S. Constitution that covers the principles in The 5000 Year Leap, it doesn’t make any difference what the percentage in the minority is, if it is any percent less than 50 plus one, it has the power to nullify a proposal, and the majority then is held hostage by that minority. That was one of the reasons for holding the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

But what about protecting the rights of the minority? Cleon Skousen addressed the rights of minorities in conjunction with the sixth principle concerning the fact that all men are created equal. Minorities have the same rights as the majority:

· At the bar of Justice
· At the ballot box
· At the public school
· At the employment office
· At the real estate agency
· At the pulpit (religious freedom)
· At the podium (freedom of speech)
· At the microphone
· At the meeting hall
· At the print shop
· At the store
· At the bank
· At the tax collector’s office
· At the probate court

So you see even if the minority looses in a particular political venture, they are still guaranteed the same rights under the Constitution. In essence then those in the minority can work to either educate others to see their point of view and become the majority or in the process educate themselves on the issues until they side with the majority. Either way, they have the opportunity to be part of the majority.

Now how does that apply to what is happening in our country today? Well, there was a multi-state/multi-city peaceful demonstration of people held this past Wednesday called a "TEA Party." Those at the protest had several different issues but most would agree that they all felt that the current government has perpetuated an encroachment on their posterity; with the stimulus packages for the economy (more spending of what they don’t have), bailouts of companies that have (through the help and encouragement of some government officials) failed and are bankrupt, and new spending for benefits that are bankrupting the country now (health care in particular).

These people who were peacefully protesting probably feel that they are in the majority. However, for many years complacency, on the part of the majority as a whole which preceded this past presidential election, has lulled many (of the majority) into thinking that there was no way that the minority would ever win an election because, “surely there will always be enough of the majority voting to win against the minority.” Sadly that was not the case this time. Too many of the majority stayed home and the pendulum of power swung past center and now inertia is taking it toward those who prefer to see government grow and take care of them and away from those who prefer to see government shrink and are ready, willing, and able to fend for themselves.

The major thrust of this movement is a forward looking band that would like to see their posterity have at least the rudiments of a standard of living. Instead they fear that their posterity will be, either enslaved to payments on a national debt that will eat up their living, or forced to live under the flag of some other country that owns most, if not all, of our country because they bought up that debt.

I guess when you come right down to it the majority is only the majority while all members of that body stick together. The minute that the majority forgets about the principles that make them a majority and become fractious because of disagreements on issues, they become just so many minorities. Those who were the lesser body and were called the minority but stuck together (no matter what the issue was that bound them) became the majority. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

Somewhere I read that it is not common that the voice of the people will desire anything contrary to what is right, but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire what is not right and that if the time comes when the voice of the people does choose iniquity, then they are ripe for destruction. In this case, I don’t think that the majority of the people chose to do wrong, but they didn’t choose to vote in sufficient numbers to maintain the right so, by default, they ended up in a situation they are not very happy with, and are now being labeled the disgruntled minority even though in reality they are probably greater in number than those whom the current government says they received a “mandate for change” from.

May we work to regain those correct principles and unite again behind them and make this country great. I advocate the principles and values of The 912 Project as well as the 28 principles found in The 5000 Year Leap.

The Principles of Liberty (Nineteen)

2009-04-11T11:25:00.003-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Nineteen)
By William Pressgrove

“Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained in the people.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 223)

With the state of affairs in our country today, this is one of the principles that must be considered most profoundly. Over time the federal government has taken control of almost all of the responsibilities that the States used to have. The reason this has happened is rooted in the 17th amendment: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected to a six year term by the people thereof; and each Senator shall have one vote.” (Prior to this amendment Senators were selected by the state legislatures.) When Senators became subject to the people instead of the states, the balance of power between the states and federal government tipped heavily toward the Federal government.

Since that time, people have increasingly looked to the federal government to solve all of their problems. The politicians were more than willing to take on this responsibility because that gave them more power. Thus the pendulum of power began to swing to the federal government, and it hasn’t stopped yet. What the states legislatures didn’t realize when they ratified the 17th amendment was that once the Senators were elected by the people they would lose their voice on Capitol Hill. Cleon Skousen stated it this way:

“The Founders felt that unless the principle of dual sovereignty was carefully perpetuated, the healthy independence of each would deteriorate and eventually one or the other would become totally dominant. If the federal government would become dominant, it would mean the end of local self-government and the security of the individual. On the other hand, if the states became dominant, the federal government would become so weak that the structure of the nation would begin to fractionalize and disintegrate into smaller units.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 225)

Today people look to the federal government for all kinds of help that, prior to the 17th amendment, they would have addressed to their state leaders. By doing so, they have given more power to the federal government than is constitutional. Now “we the people” are starting to rise up against the oppressions of the federal government that we (speaking of the whole and not of individuals) ourselves caused by appealing to the federal government to provide us with what, according to the Constitution, the states or we ourselves should be providing.

The real danger lies in this, the pendulum of public action has started to swing back in the other direction of “peoples rule” may, because of the weight of it and inertia, carry the country past the balance of power to the opposite extreme of anarchy. Once that happens the country could fracture into the smaller units and we would be in the same predicament that the thirteen original states found themselves under the Articles of Confederation.
Alexander Hamilton emphasized this point when he wrote:

This balance between the national and state governments ought to be dwelt on with particular attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits, by certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them. ((Quoted in Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power [Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1949], pl 218.) (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 225))

One thing that has to be done to ensure the return of balanced government is to work toward a repeal of the 17th amendment which would put the state governments back in balance in the legislature. It would protect the rights of the states, and along with those rights comes the responsibilities that the federal government has taken over. It would then be the responsibility of the people to work with their state governments to provide the political stability and guidance needed to satisfy the needs of the people of that state.

In this lies a word of warning to those of us who are very angry at the Federal Government. It is good for us to let our leaders in Washington know that we are upset with the way they are stealing from our grandchildren and great grandchildren to support their “lifestyle” with pork barrel projects and earmarks. However, we need to make sure that the state governments are willing and ready to stand up to the tasks that will be laid upon them when we finally get the Federal Government to return sovereignty back to the states and to the people. We have to be willing to curb our lifestyles as well, and return to living within our means. That will mean some hardships for many of us that have been accustomed to having someone else take care of our mundane tasks. When we take back our rights to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” we also take back our responsibilities for attaining them. If we don’t take back those responsibilities, or we think that it is too hard for us to rely upon ourselves, then we will fall back into the hands of the bureaucrats in Washington and our plight will be even worse than it is now under federal government control.

Principles of Liberty (Eighteen)

2009-04-03T22:20:00.004-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Eighteen)

By William Pressgrove

“The unalienable rights of the people are mostlikely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written constitution.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 217)

In reality, the only written constitutions that were to be had before the Articles of Confederation were those of either colonies like the charter known as the “Mayflower Compact” or the “Fundamental orders of Connecticut.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 218) Prior to that there were bills of rights written up, but not constitutions. The political affairs of the Anglo Saxons were governed by common law and custom both of which were unwritten. So having a written Constitution was traveling in uncharted waters to use a maritime metaphor.

However, since our Constitution has proven to be of great benefit for maintaining government on an even keel and served, up until now, to rein in politicians with voracious appetites for power, it has served as a model for the constitutions of many other nations. The underlying principle for having a written constitution is that it sets forth the consequences for its violation and parameters for its use. This type of guidance serves to settle many of the disputes that arise in nations without such a constitution.

As we move into the 21st century it has become apparent that this concept of living by a written constitution is coming under tremendous fire from those who have been maintaining the appearance of living by the Constitution when in reality they have been usurping power from the people and imposing laws and acts that do not have any basis in the Constitution. Today it has gotten to the point where, under the guise of having a “national crisis” the usurpers have taken it upon themselves to invest tax payers, including the taxes of future generations to the third and fourth generation, in the purchase of common stock in private businesses and in bailing out companies. All of this undermines the fundamentals of a free market economy and turns it into a collective run by the central government much like the socialistic nations of Europe have, which I might add have not been successful in maintaining their programs and are continuing to tax their citizens more heavily each year in an attempt to maintain them.

The only way for this country to keep this usurpation from happening is for the people who are the sovereign to take action and let the elected officials know that they are aware of the principles the Constitution is founded on and that they are our servants and not our masters. One way to do that is to join with the many that are gathering on April 15th to hold TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties that are being held in most of the major cities throughout the country. Another way to let your Congressmen know your feelings on the individual bills of legislation they are attempting to pass is by writing/calling/e-mailing them each time they attempt to usurp the authority of the American people by instituting laws that take away our rights and responsibilities for self and family. Each time they take away more of our rights, it is in the name of security. So many people want their freedom to be secured. They give up more freedom than they secure with each new program to secure some freedom. People don’t realize that when government “secures” any freedom, they make demands and set parameters that restrict other freedoms in order to achieve their goal of securing that specific freedom. Example, to secure the freedom of having a government program for retirement, the freedom to use the funds you make are partially curtailed in the form of a tax to pay for the “social security” program. Even more funds are taken from your paycheck to secure freedom from medical problems for the entire country with Medicare/Medicaid taxes.

If we don’t do something soon, we will be taxed with a very burdensome tax to pay for the contrived culprit of “global warming.” All of our energy will be taxed to the point that you can’t use your furnace to keep warm because the natural gas or electricity will cost so much you can’t use (consume) them in an amount sufficient to keep yourself warm, so make sure you have enough quilts for the entire family or make sure that your relationships are in good repair because you might just have to huddle under the one quilt you do have to keep warm. Of course, that is said tongue in cheek, but it isn’t as farfetched as it might seem.

All of this comes from allowing politicians to deviate from their responsibility to adhere to the Constitution, as it is written. Politicians have expanded the meaning of the term “general welfare” to the point that the majority of the money we pay to “run the government” is being spent for social programs (none of which were ever in the purview of the Constitution under the hand of those who were instrumental in writing it). Today 61% of the national budget goes to pay for these social programs. (fairtax.org) We need to unite to turn this trend around and get our national debt paid off so that it isn’t a burden to future generations to the third and fourth generations.

Lets return to the principles the Founding Fathers put into place to secure our freedoms and then take responsibility for ourselves so we can protect them. Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Following this principle will do more to restore our liberty and security than any amount of money that we can pay the government to provide security for us. God bless us in endeavoring to return to correct principles.

The Principles of Liberty (Seventeen)

2009-03-29T08:24:00.002-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Seventeen)

By William Pressgrove

“A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent abuse of power.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 205)

As I wrote concerning principle sixteen I eluded to the very things that principle seventeen addresses. Because of the studies that Madison had done concerning the powers of government, he was fearful that the government should grow so strong that it took away the sovereignty from the people. For this purpose he proposed the three branches of government that we presently have and distributed the powers to govern amongst them so that they would have to work together to govern, but they would jealously guard the powers that they were given against encroachment from the others. He wrote: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (Federalist Papers, No. 47, p. 301, as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, p.206)

The idea that the government could become tyrannical was a great concern for those who were about to construct a new government. The Articles of Confederation weren’t working because it didn’t give government sufficient power to protect them from encroachment, neither from foreign powers, nor upon each other. Therefore, Madison urged the different State governments to send delegated to a convention to “review” the Articles of Confederation, although he knew that the changes that needed to be made were so radical that they would abolish the Articles. However, the Constitution that came out of that convention would prove to be the best form of government to protect the unalienable rights of man and provide for a fairness of intercourse between States and foreign nations that had ever been written.

Madison commented on the responsibility of the government to rely upon the “sovereign”, in other words the people, to resolve disputes that might arise as to encroachments by any branch of government of the powers given to another. He said:

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter under which the [power of the] several branches of government...is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority...whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. (Federalist Papers, No. 49, pp. 313-314, as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, p.208)

With this understanding of how the system should be working, the people should have a greater part in overseeing government to ensure that the powers of one branch are not usurped by any other branch of government. There are 18 checks and balances mentioned on pages 211-213 of The 5000 Year Leap which explain in detail the checks and balances placed in the Constitution. However for the sake of brevity, the following checks and balances are paraphrased here to remind us of our responsibility as we go into this period of history.

1. The legislature should check the presidency in law making by ensuring that “executive orders” do not take effect as law without thorough debate and approval of the legislature.
2. The President should use his veto power whenever he sees the legislature does not properly review and debate legislation that unconstitutionally uses monies from the treasury to fund pork barrel projects or for anything that is not strictly for the general welfare of the entire population.
3. Judicial review is not for the purpose of “legislating from the bench” bench, but to ensure that all legislation is constitutional. The President and Congress can check the judiciary in this by using their power to impeach, restrict the extent of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, and in filling posts on the judiciary.
For the full range of the checks and balances, go to the above referred pages.

As for how the sovereign is to make their voice heard on issues, there are three things that the people can do. First, they need to elect responsible individuals to fill the seats in the Presidency, House and Senate. Second, keep themselves informed on what those representatives are doing in government, and write to them encouraging them to do the right thing. And finally, if those representatives don’t do what the sovereign feels they should be doing, elect someone else who will do what they feel is appropriate.

These are some of our most precious checks and balances. If we are to retain our freedom, we must be vigilant in maintaining these as we make those who represent us aware of the fact that we are the sovereign governing body of this country.

Principles of Liberty (Sixteen)

2009-03-20T20:51:00.002-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Sixteen)

By William Pressgrove

“The government should be separated into three branches—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 194)

Today, any time the President wants a law enacted he can make an “Executive Order.” That order has the weight of law (unless Congress acts within a specified amount of time to vote against it). The last time I checked, that maneuver circumvents the Constitutional process of making laws through the legislature. By the same token, the Supreme Court rules on a case and low and behold the law is changed. The last time I checked, that is called “legislating from the bench.”

So, without going into the history of Polybius and the Baron Charles de Montesquieu and how they influenced the Founding Fathers, it appears that the principle of separation of powers was to ensure that no one individual or group could gain control of all of the power in the government. It appears that this ideology has taken a back seat to a power struggle between the three branches of government. The executive wants to not only execute the law but to legislate it as well. The judicial not only wants to adjudicate the law, but to fashion laws that reflect their ideology from what they adjudicate. No, the legislative branch, instead of keeping an eye on the legislative ambitions of the other two, is more interested in the political power of partisan politics. They only want to do two things. First, they want their party to be in control, and second, to make sure they remain in office as long as they possibly can.

There are many legal uses of executive orders, but not all presidents have operated within the guidelines of what is legal. When the president acts by executive order to further a politically motivated policy it can become law if there is no opposition to it by Congress. Likewise, if no case involving the executive order is brought before the Supreme Court to be adjudicated it can remain as law. Therefore, the executive can act as, not only the executor or the law, but also legislator from the “Oval Office.”

It is not as easy to see how the Supreme Court makes law, but a prime example is the Roe v. Wade case in which the Supreme Court establishes by its ruling when life begins which opened the way for federally funded abortions. The courts in California have legislated from the bench to overturn laws in California thus allowing same-sex marriages which the citizens of California countered with Proposition 8 that established the definition of marriage in the State Constitution. Those opposed to the proposition have resorted to the court to overturn this amendment with the argument that the amendment is unconstitutional. This will be a case to keep an eye on.

With what is going on in this country right now we need to be reminded and to remind each other of this separation of powers. We need to remain involved in the affairs of our national government by writing frequently to our Congressmen and Representatives with our opinions on the legislation that is being proposed by Congress, Executive Orders that legislate, and rulings from the bench of the Supreme Court that tend to limit our rights to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Principles of Liberty (Fifteen)

2009-03-13T23:07:00.003-05:00

Principles of Liberty (Fifteen)

By William Pressgrove

“The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 179)

This principle is one of the most important as far as the economy of our country goes today. It contains the answer to the economic problems we are experiencing. This principle is based on the economic research and life’s work of Adam Smith. In 1776 he completed a five volume work called The Wealth of Nations. It contains all of the ins and outs of the free-market economic system. The Founding Fathers believed it was the model that this country should follow. To them, Adam Smith was able to apply natural law to economics in the most viable and natural way. Their economic philosophy worked for the first 120 years or so in spite of the frailties of human nature that reared their ugly head with the acceptance and application of the Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest” to economics in the later part of the 19th century. It is incomprehensible how, except for the profit motive, those in power could look at the history of our country which confirms that:

By 1905 the United States had become the richest industrial nation in the world. With only 5 percent of the earth’s continental land area and merely 6 percent of the world’s population, the American people were producing over half of almost everything—clothes, food, houses, transportation, communications, even luxuries. (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 181)
How anyone would think that it was not working is beyond me. However, there were “many prominent and influential leaders losing confidence in the system. These included wealthy industrialists, heads of multi-national banking institutions and leaders in the academic world, and some of the more innovative minds in the media.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 182) Interestingly enough these individuals stood to gain the most from changes that would allow government in interfere more in the economy.

Colleges and universities began to turn their back on the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers at about the same time and started teaching as acceptable the socialistic ideologies of Carl Marx. They spoke of Adam Smith only in derision and never encouraged students to read The Wealth of Nations. These professors laid the foundation for the Keynesian theory that was introduced as a solution to the Great Depression (the same invalid solution that our politicians are employing to end the current recession/depression).

The solution that the Founding Fathers had and tried to implement, although they were not totally successful, was to rid the country of “money changers in the temple” so to speak. Congress was charged “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin...” (Article I, Section 8, clause 5). By taking charge of the money out of the private banks that now control it and produce the “boom and bust” cycles that occur in our economy and reestablish the gold standard with no possible way to slip back into the fractional banking (the practice of only having a fraction of the money loaned out on hand) we could return to the prosperity we once knew. One of the reasons I find this to be the answer is that it sends the rest of the economic world into a tizzy when it is mention like it was in the London Times:

If the mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country (the Civil War), should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe. (Quoted in Gertrude Margaret Coogan, Money Creators [Hawthorne, Cal.: Omni Publications, 1974], p. 217, as repeated in The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 190.)

So you see if it caused that much of a stir throughout the world when Abraham Lincoln almost succeeded in implementing this principle fully as the Founding Fathers intended, just imagine what it could do to remedy the current situation. That being the case, just think what it could do if other countries followed the lead of the United States. This economic policy needs to be fully discussed and debated to see how best to implement it to stabilize our economy and return this country to its former greatness. Personally I feel that a good start would be to take the “redistribution of wealth” out of the hands of Congress by establishing a Fair Tax as the foundation for financing this country.

Principles of Liberty (Fourteen)

2009-03-06T20:37:00.001-06:00

Principles of Liberty (Fourteen)

By William Pressgrove

“Life and liberty are secure only so long as the right to property is secure.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 169)

It isn’t rocket science to see that if an individual has no rights to be secure in his property, that Darwinian law “survival of the fittest” would be the rule. John Locke had the right idea when he said, “God, who hath given the world to men in common, has also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.” (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, p. 30, par. 25) Without this idea of using it to the best advantage of life, then men would be stuck in the stone ages where no one would do anything more than provide a subsistence living for themselves and their family. In order to go beyond the subsistence living, a man must be secure in his property; otherwise, no one would work to improve their property because just as soon as they did, someone stronger or smarter would come along and take it away from them.

What John Locke said becomes the key. Knowing that the Founding Fathers gave a lot of credence to John Locke’s philosophy, it is understandable that they incorporated that philosophy into the form of government they designed for this country. That philosophy relies heavily on an understanding of the relationship between God and man. Without a belief in that philosophy this country becomes ungovernable. John Adams expressed most succinctly when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (as quoted in The Myth of Separation, David Barton, p. 123) It is that “moral and religious” belief that allows us to own property and “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:26) If it weren’t for the Christian religion and Christian principles that the Founding Fathers believed in, we wouldn’t have a Constitution designed to protect our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

What we see happening is a systematic erosion of those principles and the underlying beliefs through the weakening of the religious foundation by a misguided public that has been fed the line “separation of church and state” to the point that they don’t understand that what they wish for will ultimately take away from them the freedoms that they so desire to have. It is imperative that we educate those around us to the dangers of excluding religious principles as the rules by which the country should be governed. An understanding of the integral relationship of Christian principles and the governance of the country has to be instilled in our children so that they know the foundation upon which their freedom and liberty rest upon.

This should be one of the things that parents discuss with their children and an intimate part of their relationship with their children. By doing so, the next generation will grow up with a correct understanding of what freedom and liberty really are and how precious they are to the joy and happiness they enjoy.

Principles of Liberty (Thirteen)

2009-02-28T21:42:00.000-06:00

Principles of Liberty (Thirteen)

By William Pressgrove

“A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailties of their rulers.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 163)

There are many who say that the Constitution needs to be “updated” because the times have changed. Times have changed, but the issues the Constitution was constructed to address have not. Yes the economy has changed, the world situation has changed, and the perceptions of what the Constitution should do have changed, but HUMAN NATURE hasn’t changed and that is what the Constitutions was written to address.

Many of the Founding Fathers expressed their fears that if the people were not vigilant, then the malevolent character of human nature would wear away the rights that the Constitution was to protect. Alexander Hamilton wrote: “For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights were in the possession of those [toward] whom they entertain the least suspicion.” (Federalist Papers, No. 25, p. 164) He was concerned that people would lower their guard when those they trust the most were in office.

The following is from a scripture that is in the cannon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but the source should be irrelevant because the truthfulness of it transcends religion, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” (D&C 121:39) This expresses the very sentiment of the Founding Fathers. Lord Acton (1834-1902) said, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He understood the same thing that the Founding Fathers understood, that is, if we are not vigilant we will be at the mercy of those we have elected.

The reason that the country is in the position it is in today is because those to whom “we the people” have entrusted to govern have taken two words from the Constitution and re-interpreted them to allow them to do virtually anything they want to do. Those two words—general welfare. These two words have become synonymous with the word charity. The Founding Fathers deliberately did not address charity in the Constitution because they knew how corrupting and how quickly the definition of charity could be expanded to cover anything those in “power” wanted it to cover.

Just think about it. Politicians retain their power and position by getting reelected. They get reelected based on “how well they serve their constituents.” How well they serve their constituents is judged by how much money they can bring into their district in the form of pet projects (earmarks or pork barrel projects). What the people don’t realize is that the politicians have been using the people’s own money to fund the projects that are used to promote their ability to “do” for the people. So the people are being bribed to vote for representatives and senators with their own money. Well actually they have spent their constituent’s money a long time ago and so now with the deficit spending they are working on spending their constituent’s children, grand children and great grandchildren’s inheritance.

The Founding Fathers did everything they could do to ensure that we didn’t succumb to the enticing voices of the politicians that have brought this country to the current crisis. The only way to reverse this process is for the people to stand up and say enough is enough. The programs that are being rammed down the throat of Americans today in the form of national health care, expanded benefits for the elderly and unemployment, bailouts for various private businesses, nationalization of banks, and most environmental initiatives are the very things that the Founding Fathers warned us against.

One thing that we must remember is that for every program that the government comes up with to relieve us of the burden of being responsible for ourselves, is another program that takes away the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are guaranteed us by strictly following the Constitution. It’s time to wake up and realize the horrifying predicament we are in right now. We all need to let our elected officials know we are not happy with what is happening and we will not tolerate the continuation of these usurpations of authority from them.

Principles of Liberty (Twelve)

2009-02-21T20:07:00.004-06:00

Principles of Liberty (Twelve)

By William Pressgrove

“The United States of America shall be a Republic." (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)

With the things that are happening in this country right now, I can’t think of a more timely discussion than one about how this country is governed, especially concerning the form of government we have. Most of my life, even though I said the pledge of allegiance every day of my elementary school life, I found myself referring to America as a democracy as I was conditioned to do by radio, TV, teachers and politicians as I was growing up. Well I have been set straight thanks to those who are more well read and studied than myself, in particular W. Cleon Skousen and a friend in the cause Earl Taylor. “At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a passerby asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?’ Franklin replied, ‘A republic—if you can keep it.’” (Quoted in a speech by Chuck Baldwin July 30, 2008) That is what this discussion is all about, keeping it.

James Madison made it perfectly clear that a democracy as the Greeks attempted to use would not be a viable form of government in a county that was anticipated to grow as ours has. That is the reason that a republican (a representative government in which those who are elected to govern are representatives of the people) form of government was instituted in the Constitution. Madison said, “It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it...” (Federalist Papers, No. 39, p. 241) (Italics added for emphasis) He thought, with just cause, that if the rich and powerful could figure out a way to influence the selection of these representatives then even though this government was a republic, it could and would become tyrannical. The real problem here is that even though it was tyrannical, it would have the guise of being legitimate because it is a republican form of government by name.

It appears that Madison’s worst fears have been realized. Even though our representatives and now Senators (reference to the 17th Amendment) are elected by the people, it is the influence of special interest groups and those with the monetary influence who 1) influence elections in their favor, and 2) influence the decisions of those elected in their favor to get gain. This has become quite apparent with the passing of this stimulus bill, with 70+ % of the general population expressing their view that it was not a good idea, that those who have been elected are 1) not listening to their constituents, and 2) have their self-serving interests at heart as demonstrated by all the ineffective spending that it contains.

A serious look at the differences in the reasons for government spending money from the days of the Founding Fathers to today should be sufficient to convince any that this government has moved significantly toward Socialism. Government has grown to where it is more concerned with taking care of every problem for every individual than it is about taking care of the concerns that would require a collective action to accomplish like “pay the Debts, and provide for the common defense, and general welfare of the United States...” (US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 delegation of powers). (Italics added for emphasis) The expansion of the term general welfare to mean every object of concern for each citizen is the ideology that drives my concern for what is being done for two reasons, 1) each individual’s welfare is not the express concern of the government, unless the government feels that each individual is property of the state, and 2) NEVER has the government given any benefit to any citizen, or lesser body of government without strings attached which means if you get something from the government, they control you. If they control you, what happens to your unalienable right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” then?

One of the sad conclusions I have come to by watching the political process over the past several years is that it doesn’t matter what political party is in control of the government, the end result of usurpation of individual responsibility and thus individual rights has been universal throughout. Some take more advantage of their position to alleviate the citizens of their rights and responsibilities than others have, but the end result has been the same. Each regime has taken more responsibility for our “well-being” than the previous one did, or maybe it is that we have become so weak and dependent as individuals that we have abdicated our responsibility for taking care of ourselves voluntarily. Either way the end result is the same, we lose our unalienable rights. However, I feel that the latter is the most destructive because it leaves us without any hope of ever getting them back because we gave them up freely.

A republic is still the best form of government, but even a republic is insufficient to govern a people who have become complacent and sheep-like regarding their responsibility for their own well-being and care. My hope is that it isn’t too late and that people will wake up to the awful situation we have gotten ourselves into by not being vigilant concerning our responsibility for self and for electing responsible representatives and Senators. That is where it has become difficult to keep a republic. Not that the name has changed, but that we have abdicated our responsibility toward it to the point where it no longer is a republic, but a representative socialism.

Principles of Liberty (Ten and Eleven)

2009-02-14T09:42:00.001-06:00

Principles of Liberty (Ten and Eleven)

By William Pressgrove

“The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.” (Ten) “The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.” (Eleven) (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)

Now before the conclusion is reached that this article advocates a revolution to take back the reins of government from the current administration an understanding of the fact that the Founding Fathers did that very thing when they broke away from British rule when this country came into existence. This article in no way is an incitement to riot or rebellion, but an attempt to open eyes to the lessons from history and not just a history lesson.

In light of the recent events in which the country’s leaders have passed the largest spending bill in the history of the country and that all of the money appropriated for this spending bill will have to be added to the national debt because there isn’t anything in the national treasury to offset these expenditure, it seems to be an important time to review who the sovereign is and what rights the sovereign has in regard to changing leadership. This statement isn’t made in an of hand manner with no evidence that the sovereign isn’t happy with the leadership for the way this particular bill was handled. From statistics gathered by Family Research Center, only 37 percent of the sovereign of this country approved of the spending bill. That seems a far cry from a majority.

Another issue worth mentioning, although not totally related to this topic is that fact that the current administration has promised greater transparency in government and that the sovereign will have a chance to use technology to review legislation and make their voice heard on these issues; however, this spending bill was not only rushed through before the sovereign had a chance to look at and comment on it but it was done so fast and was so large that even the legislature that was required to vote on it on behalf of the sovereign didn’t even have time to read and digest it before being required to vote on it.

Now to return to the principles we are discussing. The Founding Fathers followed the philosophies of John Locke regarding who the sovereign was and what rights that sovereign had with regard to setting up and disposing of leadership. The underlying ideology of the whole people being the sovereign comes from the fact that each individual has the unalienable rights that Thomas Jefferson enumerated and implied exist in the Declaration of Independence, i.e. among others, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). If each individual has the same rights, then collectively they have the same rights. Those individuals can then unite themselves into a group and organize themselves in such a manner as to delegate to individuals, they deem trustworthy, the responsibility to safeguard those rights to and for each individual.

The Founding Fathers; therefore, followed the lead of John Locke who said, “...persons who are to bear rule being as natural and necessary a part of the form of the government itself, and that which has its establishment ORIGINALLY FROM THE PEOPLE...all commonwealths, therefore, with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing and conveying the right to those who are to have any share in the public authority...” (Locke, Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, pp. 70-71) and ensured that the authority of the rulers came from the consent of those governed and not the other way around. This sentiment is reflected by Alexander Hamilton as he declared: “The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” (Federalist Papers, no.22, p. 152) If we abdicate our right as the sovereign body by allowing those to stay in power who have so blatantly usurped and abused our trust in them, we will not only find ourselves disenfranchised, but we will deserve everything that is coming because of the abuses of power by those we have placed in power.

As for the Eleventh principle concerning altering or abolishing a tyrannical government, events of the first month of the current presidency has already laid the foundation for unrest in this country that could lead to the alteration or abolition of the government that is leading us down a path that makes slaves of our posterity to the debt we have laid upon them. One of the most important ideologies behind the eleventh principle is that of majority. As pointed out earlier, only 37 percent of the sovereign approve of the spending bill just passed. This is a great gamble on the part of the leadership of the country!

If this government doesn’t deliver the relief promised, then what is going to happen? What happens when the cry of outrage about the current generation maintaining a standard of living at the expense of those yet unborn reaches the hearts of the majority of the people? This thought is being expressed by several thinking commentators in the country already. What happens when those of the world decide that this country’s securities have become a risk and stop buying our treasury notes as securities? Where will the money to support this gross expenditure to maintain a standard of living and governmental programs to appease the masses going to come from? As this is being written the discussion on the TV is about the over extension of credit that exists in this country from the individual all the way up to the central government.

There will come a point where the majority in this country will say that they have had enough of this type of extravagance at the expense of the rich and the unborn. There will be a revolt whether it will be an economic or violent revolt is yet to be seen, but it will come if fiscal responsibility doesn’t return to those who have been placed in positions of power over us. We as a people have to return to sound principles of self reliance and responsibility and expect the same from our leaders in order to salvage the reputation of America as the greatest country of the world.

Principles of Liberty (Nine)

2009-02-07T09:05:00.001-06:00

Principles of Liberty (Nine)
By William Pressgrove

"To protect man’s rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law." (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)

The principles of divine law are more commonly known as “laws of nature.” If we are to understand the significance of these laws, we must concede that the unalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence are rights given by the Creator, and that the ultimate ruler of mankind is the Creator. All laws of man, in order to be just and valid, must conform to these laws of nature. The most quoted contemporary of the Founding Fathers was Sir William Blackstone. The Founding Fathers relied heavily on his commentary on the laws of England for an understanding of rights.

Sir William Blackstone wrote:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.... This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of nature, being coeval [having the same age or date of origin] with mankind, and dictated by God, Himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this. (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1:54, 56, 63.)

This being the case, and this country being founded on principles taken from natural law, it doesn’t matter what the country of origin, political, or religious philosophy of an immigrant is when they come to this country they are subject to the laws of this country. Even if they don’t believe that there is such a thing as a creator or if they have a religious belief that doesn’t resemble Christianity, they are still subject to the laws of this country that were founded on natural law. They may practice their beliefs in private without any interference from those around them, but when they try to introduce laws into the public system that go contrary to the natural laws upon which our Constitution is founded then it is our duty to arrest this attempt before it defiles the system of laws that were instituted to protect our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The only way we can protect our unalienable rights from encroachment, governmental or otherwise, is to be aware of what is going on in government and around us and have a working understanding of the principles upon which our unalienable rights are founded. Otherwise we become victims of the injustices which erode our rights and subject us to “unrighteous dominion” by those who seek to make themselves the ultimate authority of the laws and statutes of our land. This vigilance also includes knowing what is going on in the government. To keep an eye on the laws and statutes that are being entered into the Federal Registry, you can request to be put on an e-mail list from the Federal Registry at the following web address: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/. Under “other services” click on the words “Sign up” at the beginning of the first bullet. The next screen you want to click on the words “Online mailing list archives” in the first bullet. On the next screen go down and click on the third option which is called, “FEDREGTOC-L” (the Federal Register Table of Contents list) click on the third option “Join or leave the list (or change settings)”. Read the information given and fill out the requested information to be placed on the list.

One of the areas I keep an eye on is the area of Executive Documents which has an index of all the documents filed in the Federal Register by the President or the Office of the President, including all administrative and Executive orders. I am concerned about these in particular because I don’t believe that the Executive Orders that make or change law are Constitutional although each says that it is.

Being vigilant about these things can keep us from entering into submission without our knowledge of things that will infringe on our unalienable rights. We can make people aware, our Congressmen/women and Representatives in particular, about the things we disagree with that are being done more or less covertly (because of the lack of coverage by media complicit in the governmental agenda) by those who are in power.

Become involved. The future of this country depends on our involvement in the political affairs. We are the sovereign and our servants on Capitol Hill need to know how we feel about their dealings on our behalf.

Principles of Liberty (Eight)

2009-01-30T23:23:00.002-06:00

Principles of Liberty (eight)
By William Pressgrove

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” (The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen)

Here is where things get interesting for me. We live in a day when Christianity seems to be under attack from all sides, but nowhere as much as in the realm of government. The term “separation of church and state” has been repeated so many times that many people, including many of my high school students, believe that those words are either in the Constitution or in the First Amendment.

The reason I find it interesting is because if it weren’t for the foundation in Christianity, the Founding Fathers would not have incorporated so many principles, based on Chritian teachings, into the Constitution as they did. The Declaration of Independence unarguably focuses on the principle of Christianity that dictates that there is a God and that that god or Creator was at the core of all their teachings and their endeavor to separate themselves from a despotic monarchy which put the crown above God as the provider of rights.

Thomas Jefferson made no bones about it. This country was founded on a belief that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [God] with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Unalienable rights have to come from someone who is the ultimate authority, who is above temptation to revoke those rights when they are no longer convenient for him, who will allow you to violate those unalienable rights and suffer the consequences for your actions even though it pains him to have to witness it.

Here’s the rub—those who are so anxious to separate religion from government also want to make sure man’s rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are safeguarded. However, their method of safeguarding these rights is to pretend that government has given these rights to the people and has a responsibility to protect them by passing a whole series of laws they call “civil rights”. To paraphrase a biblical term, what the government giveth, the government taketh away. Civil rights are no more unalienable than the right to drive on American highways. The government can tell you any time it wants to that you can’t drive on a highway. Those who think government protects unalienable rights only has to take a look at the laws that now invade homes, confiscate property, prohibit fireworks on national holidays, or any number of other things that were not considered unlawful when I was growing up to realize that unalienable rights don’t come from the government.

On the other hand, God will not interfere with our rights to life, liberty, and property (the pursuit of happiness) so long as we don’t violate the principles He has purposely places there for our happiness. When we do violate those principles the consequences are always natural consequences not consequences contrived by government. Governments can and will make laws that violate your rights to life, liberty, and property when it suits them, with the main objective in mind to gain more control. The more the government makes laws, the less freedom you have to act of your own free will and choice to take advantage of your unalienable rights.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that when they concede responsibilities to the government, the government will gladly take those responsibilities but at what cost? Here is an example. Before the “New Deal” people were responsible for providing for their own retirement, if they wanted to retire in stead of earning their living “by the sweat of their brow” until they die, they had to put away sufficient funds to be able to retire on for themselves. With the New Deal, the government started a “retirement suppliment program” called Social Security. Now the government has run it into the ground and doesn’t know where the money is going to come from to pay the baby boomers now that they are retiring. The point being, when the government took over the individual’s responsibility for providing for themselves, they started taking away property from the individual to be distributed to the masses at a later date. Both are now seeing the loss. The individuals being taxed to pay for social security lost control over the funds he could have otherwise used to provide for his own retirement, and the government lost control of spending and spent the funds that would have otherwise been there for all the retirees when they retired.
What it boils down to is this. Unalienable rights are given to man by God and with those rights man is also given responsibility to guard them and use them to procure his life, liberty, and happiness unaided or inhibited by government. The more the citizens give the government responsibility for those things, the less they can rely on the rights being unalienable. When government takes control of our responsibilities and unalienable rights there are always strings attached, and where there are strings attached, so much for the rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Principles of Liberty (Seven)

2009-01-24T12:51:00.002-06:00

Principle Number Seven
By William L. Pressgrove

“The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.” (The 5000 Year Leap, Skousen, p. 115)

This boils down to nothing more than a declaration that government doesn’t have the right to take from the “haves” to give to the “have nots”. The logic behind this principle is rather simple. Someone cannot delegate to another the power to do something they themselves don’t have the power to do. The example in The 5000 Year Leap is one of protection of one’s property. You could take responsibility to protect your property by standing guard 24/7/365, but then you wouldn’t have time to do anything else. However, if you have authority to do this you would have authority to delegate that authority to the government and they could established a police force to guard everyone’s property in return for a wage, that would be levied to everyone, that will provide them with a living. (Skousen, pp. 115-116)

To continue the analogy, Skousen added the following scenario:

But suppose a kind-hearted man saw that one of the neighbors had two cars while another neighbor had none. What would happen if, in the spirit of benevolence, the kind neighbor went over and took one of the cars from his prosperous neighbor and generously gave it to the neighbor in need? Obviously, he would be arrested for car theft. No matter how kind his intentions, he is guilty of flagrantly violating the natural rights of his prosperous neighbor, who is entitled to be protected in his property. (Skousen, p. 116)

So when the kind hearted neighbor returns from his term in prison, he still sees that the one neighbor is still walking and the other has two cars. He wants to remedy the inequity, but this time he is going to do it “by the book”. He goes to the mayor and city council and convinces them that there should be an ordinance that makes things more equal. The ordinance would read something like this: “Be it enacted that in this community no person can possess two cars until all other persons have at least one, therefore those possessing two cars must relinquish custody of their second and subsequent cars to the proper authorities to be distributed to those who have none.” Setting aside the obvious lunacy of such an ordinance, what would then happen in this community? The neighbor with two cars would have to give up one to the neighbor who had none. Now it was done legally because it is a city ordinance.

What happened to the prosperous neighbor’s right to his property? It has been dissolved. He no longer has a right to all of his property, but must give it up because it is “the law”. Not only has he lost his property, but he has lost any right to justice in the matter because it is “the law”. The real danger here is that once government starts taking liberties with property rights of one, then no one can feel secure in their property. The government can take anything they deem necessary from anyone and that person has no recourse because government stands behind the established law. This is how “legal” crimes are committed in this country on a daily basis.

In order to give this type of tyranny a more pleasing appearance the unalienable rights that were declared in the Declaration of Independence have been abandoned in favor of what are now known as “civil rights”. The problem with this is that civil rights are rights given by the government, and what the government “giveth”, the government can “taketh” away. Today we allow many things to be done by the government that we don’t have the authority to do ourselves in the name of “equality”. In reality we shall discover that in order for government to enforce what it calls equality in the name of benevolence, we all lose more and more rights and freedoms to a more and more despotic government each day. When are we going to wake up to what is going on?

Principles of Liberty (Six)

2009-01-17T21:20:00.001-06:00

Principle Number Six
By William L. Pressgrove

“All men are created equal.”

The interpretation of this principle has changed over the years. Government leaders have departed from the real intent and expanded the meaning of this principle as conveyed by the Founding Fathers.

Many of those I talk to today think that this principle means that each citizen should have equal “everything”; equal income, equal property, equal influence, equal prestige and stature and the list goes on and on. An investigation of the writings of those who were present for the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would indicate that they had a profoundly different understanding of what the phrase “created equal” meant. The following excerpt from The 5000 Year Leap clarifies their meaning:

“Yet everyone knows that no two human beings are exactly alike in any respect. “They are different when they are born. “They plainly exhibit different natural skills. “They acquire different tastes. “They develop along different lines. “They vary in physical strength, mental capacity, inherited social status, in their opportunities for self0fulfillment, and in scores of other ways. “They how can they be equal?” (The 5000 Year Leap, Skousen p. 103)

“The answer is, they can’t except in three ways. They can only be TREATED as equals in the sight of God, in the sight of the law and in the protection of their rights.”

Looking at these three areas individually, the position of the Founding Fathers becomes clear and unmistakable. First, God is no respecter of persons. That means that He knows all about us and treats each of his creations with the same respect and dignity, even though we as his creations don’t have the same capacity and tend to judge and stratify our fellow human beings into classes. His judgment of us is based on what he knows about what we really are inside. In that we are all “created equal.”

Second, being equal before the law means that whether we are paupers or high born, the law looks at us as equals. If a rich man commits a heinous crime, he has to stand trial just like the poor man does. Although now-a-days, it appears that the justice of our courts tends to excuse those who can pay for the lawyers to defend them and incarcerate those who can’t afford to pay for notorious attorneys. This is one area that our system needs some serious fixing.

And third, equal in rights. Each is entitled to his “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” Cleon Skousen stated it this way:

“The goal of society is to provide ‘equal rights,’ which means protecting the rights of the people:
At the bar of justice, to secure their rights.
At the ballot box, to vote for the candidate of their choice.
At the public school, to obtain their education.
At the employment office, to compete for a job.
At the real estate agency, to purchase or rent a home.
At the pulpit, to enjoy freedom of religion.
At the podium, to enjoy freedom of speech.
At the microphone or before the TV camera, to present views on the issues of the day.
At the meeting hall, to peaceably assemble.
At the print shop, to enjoy freedom of the press.
At the store, to buy the essentials or desirable things of life.
At the bank, to save and prosper.
At the tax collector’s office, to pay no more than their fair share.
At the probate court, to pass on to their heirs the fruits of life’s labors.” (The 5000 Year Leap, Skousen p. 105)

Two things are evident when you look at that list. First, the list isn’t all inclusive, and second, it appears that government has, over time, begun to violate or at least interfere with many of those rights.

The last point I would like to make very clear is this; the Creator gives us inalienable rights, the government doesn’t. When those who govern begin to think that they are more powerful than those who elected them, they begin to usurp power that rightfully belongs to the sovereign (us, the citizens, in this country) and make laws that give some rights to the people and takes away others. The big caution here is; if the government gives, the government can also take away. Power in the hands of man corrupts, therefore, when it is convenient to give a right to the masses it will be done, but on the other hand when it is no longer convenient or advantageous for the masses to have that right, those in power will repeal that right with equal facility. Example, the Bill of Rights gives the citizenry the right to bear arms. There are factions in government today that want to remove that right from the masses.

When you get a chance, find some secluded place and take time to contemplate this most valuable principle of being created equal and the significance of its simplicity and veracity. The least that each one of us can do is to get involved by expressing our opinions to those who govern. They need to know how “we the people” feel on issues and they won’t ever know if we don’t tell them.

Principles of Liberty (Five)

2009-01-09T22:57:00.002-06:00

Principle Number Five

By William L. Pressgrove

“All things were created by God, therefore upon Him all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsible.”

The writings of the Founding Fathers are full of references to their beliefs concerning God. They studied the writings of John Locke amongst others. In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding he pointed out;

It defies the most elementary aspects of reason and experience to presuppose that everything in existence developed as a resulted of fortuitous circumstance. The mind, for example, will not accept the proposition that the forces of nature, churning about among themselves, would ever produce a watch, or even a lead pencil, let alone the marvelous intricacies of the human eye, the ear, or even the simplest of the organisms found in nature. (as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap, Skousen pp. 95-96)

The Founders of the country were so sure of their beliefs they based the form of government for this country on those beliefs. By the same token, they warned the people that the government they formed would not work if the citizenry ever became indifferent to that belief in God. John Adams stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap, p. 56)

There are those in our day that think that this foundation is no longer needed. They think that religion should play no part in government that man is sufficiently intelligent to govern by shear good will toward each other. With just a little thought of how humans treat each other, even when they profess a belief in God, is enough to remind us that human reason is insufficient to produce the benevolence required for government to work. Without a belief and the prevailing doctrine that there will be consequences in a future life for our actions in this life, there is no reason for us to treat each other with anything that resembles human kindness. What would be the use? You could be kind to others only to have them take advantage of you for that very kindness. How long do you think people would try to be kind to others if that were the case?

On the other hand, if the overriding belief is that man is dependent of deity for all that he has and by the same token, is responsible to deity for all that he does, then they will more likely to treat each other better because they understanding that all mankind will be held accountable for our actions in the hereafter. That is the understanding that the Founding Fathers had and it is also what John Adams meant when he said that the Constitution was wholly inadequate to govern an immoral and irreligious people.

This is the very foundation of the Constitution. These beliefs undergird all the laws of the Constitution. However, that leaves room for a discussion concerning the constitutionality of the many of the laws that have been enacted under that Constitution which undermine the very beliefs that brought it into existence, but that will have to wait for another time. It is sufficient to say that this country’s constitution was founded on religious principles based on a solid belief in God.

Principles of Liberty (Four)

2009-01-02T14:13:00.001-06:00

Principle Number Four
By William L. Pressgrove

“Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.”

Because of the philosophical changes that have taken place in the United States, people of this century find it difficult to believe that religion had a prominent role in the establishment of the government of this country. There are many writings that point to the Founding Fathers belief in “Universal Fundamentals” (The 5000 Year Leap, p.77) of religion. The Northwest Ordinance which preceded the Constitution in 1787 “emphasized the essential need to teach religion and morality in the schools. Article 3 states:

“Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encourages.”

In this case “religion...might be defined as a ‘fundamental system of beliefs concerning man’s origin and relationship to the cosmic universe as well as his relationship with his fellowmen.’” (Leap, p.76) Morality under their definition and understanding meant of right and wrong. Knowledge is also defined as being necessary to good government, but the topic that seems most controversial is the religion part (although to my way of thinking it is very difficult for morality to exist in the absence of religion).
As a school teacher, I deal with the issues of students not knowing right from wrong every day. The secular-humanistic philosophy that dominates public education has engrained in the students a narcissistic attitude that is displayed by expressions of “if it feels good, do it.” When asked how many feel that they are religious or if they attend church, less than half are willing to acknowledge any type of religious affiliation or belief. It also explains the, “If I don’t get caught, I did nothing wrong,” statements I get all the time from students that are knowingly violating the Student Handbook.
If this trend continues, the Constitution will not be adequate for the governance of this country. W. Cleon Skousen points out very clearly that the Founding Father’s understanding of the Constitutional principles was that they were sufficient to govern a “religious and moral” people, but that if the time should come when this country would forsake those religious and moral moorings that it would fall into decay and decline. Take a look around, without much difficulty the lack of morality, as defined by the Founding Fathers, is evident in almost every state in the nation.
The fourth principle is one that indispensible to the future and security of this country. If our political leaders continue to ignore it, then the political parties of this country will continue to lose their power and influence in this country. However, in order to maintain their control, they will try to convince the people of this country that the Constitution is outmoded and state that a new constitution needs to be instituted that will resemble socialism more than a republic. We need to work to retain the Constitution in order to retain our freedom because socialism is totalitarianism or tyranny instead of “people’s rule.”

Principles of Liberty (Three)

2008-12-26T08:18:00.005-06:00

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.

Principles of Liberty (Two)

2008-12-19T19:49:00.007-06:00

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.

Principles of Liberty (One)

2008-12-14T15:48:00.007-06:00

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.

How Income Tax Hurts

2008-12-06T18:37:00.003-06:00

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.