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.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Seven)
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?
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?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Six)
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.
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.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Five)
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.
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.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Four)
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
