Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Socialism… Good or Bad?

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan.” All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A… (substituting grades for dollars- something closer to home and more readily understood by all.) After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. the students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little...
The second test average was a D. No one was happy. When the third test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased, as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great.  But when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are probably the best 5 sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.  
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.  
4.You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. 
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
--- By Bill Essmann. 

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

How Did Jefferson Know ?

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Especially read the last quote from 1802.
Description: cid:03333D0F75D242A0BDA383031FFF90C0@D2ZSF9C1

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as  Europe .

 Description: cid:4875A3FB9D494393AEFA5A93B79FE40F@D2ZSF9C1

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Description: cid:5251D2BAC541498B920AE71DEE271AC7@D2ZSF9C1

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

 Description: cid:168D3B6E54154D6D995F4F3BF6C00673@D2ZSF9C1

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

 Description: cid:AE434E6C9E3E46C98521FA8E3C2044E5@D2ZSF9C1

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

 Description: cid:62D37980C81A4298ACE28269D2405290@D2ZSF9C1

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

 Description: cid:CB7501F654354B69A098BA7D722997A3@D2ZSF9C1

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

 Description: cid:BB25391D943641B7B4D121CC7FC9695A@D2ZSF9C1

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

 Description: cid:2B1040981DD546DC9ED6B622510FF05F@D2ZSF9C1

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

 Description: cid:06BACD4509474D4686C0460A5CA39147@D2ZSF9C1

Thomas  Jefferson said in 1802: 'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Making it Popular to Increase your Constitution IQ

A friend recently asked me about tests that high school students take to prepare for college entrance. We spoke about several, among which was the Scholastic Aptitude Test or the SAT. He said we ought to have a CAT for public officials—a Constitution Aptitude Test. He then asked about the PSAT, or Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test, that some high school students take in preparation for the SAT and suggested that we require that all persons thinking about running for congress take a PCAT or Preliminary Constitution Aptitude Test before they can have their names put on the ballot or at least before their party will endorse them. This conversation got me to thinking this idea could really take off in preparation for the 2012 elections. What if in every public meeting, candidates would be asked if they have taken the PCAT or the CAT yet? What if precinct committeemen would ask that question of potential candidates as a condition of carrying their petitions to be put on the ballot? What if it became the talk of the town to continue to ask all candidates or potential candidates what their Constitution IQ is? What if candidates were continually asked to tell when the last time was that they undertook a serious study of the U. S. Constitution and perhaps to name two or three areas they think may be grossly violated today?

A Sample Preliminary Constitution Aptitude Test (PCAT)

Here is a sample Preliminary Constitution Aptitude Test with questions taken from the Constitution that all persons thinking about running for congress should know. By the way, these are generated using the eighth grade level option.
  1. What is the one offense the president cannot pardon?
    1. Murder
    2. Treason
    3. Impeachment
    4. Domestic terrorism
  2. Who has the final responsibility to see that the federal laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed?
    1. The president
    2. The vice president
    3. The Cabinet
    4. The Attorney General
  3. Can a person employed by the government serve as an elector to choose the president and vice president?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  4. When the Constitution was adopted, candidates for president had to be either natural-born citizens of the United States or naturalized citizens. True or false?
    1. True
    2. False
  5. Does it violate the separation of powers when the president recommends to Congress that it pass certain laws?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  6. Could the Congress transfer the position of commander in chief from the president to some experienced military leader in time of war?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  7. Which of the following may be reasons why the Founders were opposed to placing any limitation on the number of times a president could be reelected?
    1. A limitation might require a change of leadership in a time of crisis.
    2. A limitation might deprive the nation of an experienced leader at a crucial time.
    3. It should be left to the people to decide who they want as president, regardless of previous time served.
    4. All of the above
  8. Can the compensation of the president be increased or decreased while he or she is in office?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  9. Are there any government officials who cannot be impeached?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  10. Did the original Constitution limit the president to two terms?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  11. Can the president pardon a whole group of people at once?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  12. How old must a person be to become president of the United States ?
    1. 25
    2. 30
    3. 35
    4. 40
  13. Suppose the president arranges a treaty with some foreign government. What must happen before the treaty can go into effect?
    1. The president must sign the treaty
    2. It must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate who are present when the matter comes up for consideration
    3. The Supreme Court must approve the terms of the agreement
    4. It must be ratified by a majority of the Senate who are present when the matter comes up for consideration
  14. Originally, the Founders hoped the expenses of the national government would be so modest that the entire budget for the federal government would be covered by modest taxes. What form of taxes did they envision?
    1. Taxes on imports
    2. Taxes on exports
    3. Personal income tax
    4. Property taxes
  15. Are taxes uniform throughout the United States as required by the Constitution?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  16. The passing of laws can be slow and complicated. Why might this have been the intention of the Founders?
    1. They didn't want any more laws than were absolutely necessary.
    2. The goal was not ""efficiency"" in passing laws, but effectiveness in preserving freedom.
    3. They wanted to keep government as simple and uncomplicated as possible.
    4. All of the above
  17. Can the state militias be called up to help the federal government suppress insurrections in the states?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  18. If a person went to the Federal Reserve between 1914 and 1934, what could that person get in exchange for a Federal Reserve note?
    1. gold coins
    2. silver coins
    3. all of the above
    4. none of the above
  19. The House of Representatives currently consists of 435 voting members. How many members must be present to constitute a quorum and allow the House of Representatives to conduct its business?
    1. 175
    2. 218
    3. 250
    4. 272
  20. Can the Congress regulate interstate commerce in such a way that it requires a ship to stop at certain ports to pay duties for the “right” of passage?
    1. Yes
    2. No
Let's popularize the building of our Constitution IQs among both voters and public officials.

Earl Taylor, Jr.
Answers to the sample Preliminary Constitution Aptitude test: 1. c, 2. a, 3. b, 4. a, 5. b, 6. b, 7. d, 8. b, 9. a, 10. b, 11. a, 12. c, 13. b, 14. a, 15. b, 16. d, 17. a, 18. c, 19.b, 20. b.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

George Washington’s Indispensable Wisdom for Today

April is an historic month for the office of President of the United States . On April 6, 1789, Congress met for the first time and proclaimed George Washington had been elected President unanimously. On April 30th , he was inaugurated. During the next eight years he was to gain priceless insights concerning the government of a free people. By the time he left office in 1797, he had become a treasure of political wisdom.
If anyone ever wants to know how the Founders would address the problems of today, which are not much different than the ones Washington faced, he just needs to consult Washington 's Farewell Address, delivered on Constitution Day, September 17, 1796, as he was preparing to leave office. No political document gives such clear direction to a nation in trouble, than does this message.
We ask the questions and President Washington gives the answers in these excerpts from his Farewell Address. (punctuation is updated)

Question: Of all the labels used in the country to magnify people's differences in politics, religion, ethnicity, life styles, occupations, etc., what should be the most important unifying factor of all?

  • "The name of American which belongs to you in your national capacity must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation .... With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes... Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole."
  • "One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affections."
  • "To the efficacy and permanency of your Union , a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict between the p,arts, can be an adequate substitute."

Question: What is the problem of giving political and legal power to political parties, unions, and other combinations of people?

  • "...all combinations and associations... with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive... and of fatal tendency."
  • "They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force, to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community... [and] to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests."
  • "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely... to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government...."
  • "Let me now... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party.... This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists... in all governments... but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy."
  • "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension... is itself a frightening despotism."
  • "But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result [from wars between parties] gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty."

Question: What actually will happen to our government if run by competing parties?

  • "...the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."
  • "It [party spirit] serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration."
  • "It [party spirit] agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection."
  • "It [party spirit] opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
  • "There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true.... But... it is a spirit not to be encouraged... there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it."

Question: If changes need to be made in the government, how should it be done?

  • "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for... it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
  • "It is important likewise that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another."
  • "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the power of all the departments in one and thus to create...a real despotism."

Question: What will be the result if basic constitutional principles are changed or rejected in the future?

  • "...the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state... [makes it] requisite... that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles.... One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown."
  • "in all the changes to which you may be invited, remember... that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution... [and] that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes [you] to perpetual change...."

Question: Is Civil Disobedience a method to be used by freedom-loving people to bring about change?

  • "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which... exists--till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly�obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."

Question: Above all else, what would you consider the absolute foundation of liberty?

  • "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
  • "Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"

Question: Can morality be maintained without religion? Or by those of refined education?

  • "And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever... the influence of refined education... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
  • "It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends... to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
  • "Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."

Question: How does public debt effect liberty and freedom?

  • "As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace...."
  • "But remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursement to repel it."
  • "Avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."

Question: Our foreign relations are a mess. What shall we do now?

  • "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct."
  • "It will be worthy of a free, enlightened and... great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.... Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue?"
  • "Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
  • "Likewise a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concession to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt ... to injure the nation making the concessions by ...exciting jealousy, ill will and [a] disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld."
  • "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

Question: Should Americans seek commercial relations with other nations?

  • "Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support... conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances... will permit, but temporary and liable to be... abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate."
  • "...it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept... that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of... being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more."
  • "There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate, upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure [and] which a just pride ought to discard."
Perhaps this speech should be the next document read in the halls of Congress.

Earl Taylor, Jr.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Facts About Dr. Charles Krauthammer, MD

1. Born: March 13, 1950

2. Birthplace: New York City, New York

3. Raised in Montreal, Canada

5. 1972 diving accident left him paralyzed from the neck on down.

6. Directed psychiatric research for the Carter administration

7. Began writing career in 1981 with The New Republic

8. Helped develop the "Reagan Doctrine" in the 80's

9. Appointed to Presidential Council on Bioethics in 2002

Dr. Krauthammer is frequently on the Fox News Channel. He is an M.D., a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer . He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment.. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views . He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.

The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally.

Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free...
Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask.The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton . He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite.Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain orCanada .

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada .. God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world.. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.
8.. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan , but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future... We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have..This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package.These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.

All our futures and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC, and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!!

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Shedding Light on the 1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of; abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for the right of redress of grievances.

Our Founder’s never intended that the Ten Commandments, prayer, Holy Scripture study, Christian holidays, study and/or practice of Christianity be removed from our American culture!
Just the opposite is true! Our Founder’s wanted freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. They wanted all sound religions, promoted throughout our great Republic and shared throughout the world! However, they did not want one religion to rule America, as the Church of England did during the reign of King George III.
Here’s what Thomas Jefferson (known as the Father of the Declaration of Independence) said in brief about separation of church and state. He wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association dated January 1, 1802 explaining his position saying the constitution had created “a wall of separation between church and state.”
As studied in historical context, never did Jefferson nor any other of the founder’s wanted to see any sound religion attacked or excluded from our culture. Nor, should the federal government give preferential treatment to one religion over another.
They wanted ALL religions to be encouraged to promote their moral fiber and religious tone of the people. It was in the best interest of the government and the nation to promote religious values for the moral stability needed for “good government and the happiness of mankind.”
In Thomas Jefferson’s second inaugural address, he virtually signaled the states to press forward in settling their religious issues, since it was within their jurisdiction and not the Federal Government.
The Founder’s had no objection to using public buildings for religious purposes; that was even to be encouraged. The only question was whether or not the facilities could be used EQUALLY to all denominations desiring them.
The United States Capitol has a very rich spiritual heritage and was used for religious services of all faiths in which Thomas Jefferson and other Founder’s attended for many years; even to this day, a room in the capitol that is closed to the public, is used for religious services for members of congress. Throughout the building are large beautiful paintings depicting America’s Christian Heritage. Remembering America’s Motto is engraved on the front of the Capitol building “IN GOD WE TRUST.” The United States Congress printed the first Holy Bibles in America and distributed them thought-out the nation for the good and well being of all Americans.
The large engravings on the front of the United States Supreme Court building are depicting Moses and the Ten Commandments. Keep in mind our Founder’s wanted the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution “strictly” as written in the ORIGINAL Constitution. They never wanted it changed easily by the whims of man, such has happened with the power seeking 16th and 17th amendments etc. They didn’t want an “elastic or flexible” Constitution to fit the times. They knew their inspiration came from God and those principles were eternal and unchanging. Our Founders wanted “constitutional supremacy”, as the law of the land, not “judicial supremacy”. Thomas Jefferson said, “Let not the Constitution become a blank piece of paper.”

Freedom of Speech and of the Press

This provision gave the American people the RIGHT to have the Federal Government prohibited from exercising any legal authority over freedom of speech or freedom of the press. The government has no right to dictate what is “politically correct” or not.

This does not mean that those freedoms are absolute. For example, it is not permissible for freedom of speech to slander or libel another person. It would be unlawful to cry “fire” in a crowded auditorium or theater as a practical joke and thereby cause a panic. Freedom of the press has been a difficult right to protect.
The freedom to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances shall not be abridged.
This provision guarantees the people the RIGHT to be able to petition the government without intervention or prohibition by the authorities.

A note about The Declaration of Independence

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (not equal in owning things, not equal in talents or living circumstances; but equal in the sight of God, equal under the Bar of Justice, equal under the “Laws of Nature and of Natures God” and equal in their rights under the Constitution). That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (rights given by God, not the government that cannot be taken away) That among these rights are Life (including the rights of the innocent unborn), Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (the right to own property, marry whom we want, work where we want, live where we want etc.). That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”
The original inspired Constitution provided for only 20 enumerated powers to the federal government, plus it called for a gold and silver standard of true weights and measures, controlled by Congress; not controlled by private bankers.
The Declaration of Independence said in part: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent forth swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their existence.”

Written By Fred R Willoughby

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Ronald Reagan Fought Against Obamacare 50 Years Before It Became Law

While still a Hollywood man, Ronald Reagan took to the radio airwaves to speak out against a national health care bill, then referred to as the Ferrand Bill and later the King Bill. Although 50 years ahead of his time, Reagan's impassioned address warned that such a bill would not only bring an erosion of private rights and individual freedoms but would also give socialism and statism a "foot in the door."

In his memorable peroration, Reagan calls citizens to direct and immediate action. It's a call as timely today as it was 50 years ago. Otherwise, says Reagan, "One of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

Radio Address on Socialized Medicine, 1961:

My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. ...

Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. ...

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration, it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the-door philosophy, because, he said, "[I]f we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that."

Walter Ruther said, "It's no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let's see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say, "Once the Ferrand Bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.” Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned. ...

It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that, in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens in just 10 years have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, "What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?" That's ridiculous, and of course no one's advocated it. ...

What reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says, "We insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone, regardless of whether they're worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they're protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings?"

I think we can be excused for believing that, as ex-Congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time -- socialized medicine.

James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention, said: "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."

The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other ... this is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. ... From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism. ...

The Founding Fathers -- for the first time -- established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny. ...

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is we do not want socialized medicine. ...

Write those letters now; call your friends and tell them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day, as Normal Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this, and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free.