The rights of an Englishman; the subsequent assumptions of Americans

What follows is the second chapter of the book I'm working on - unedited (please forgive my errors).

The English colonists, like all humans, made certain assumptions. Concerning nationality, they assumed they were Englishmen. As a citizen of the United States, you assume you are an American. In the event our country sent you to live in a land declared to be American soil, you’d still consider yourself to be an American. Elemental.

Since the time of the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.), the rights of an Englishmen grew steadily. Initially these rights applied to lords who bailed out King John’s need for money. In exchange for their financial support, the lords of various vassals demanded codified rights. Included in their list were considerations such as the right to a trial by their peers, the expectation that there must be reliable witnesses if accused of a crime, the right to face their accuser, that property may not be taken from a person without equitable payment, and that fines imposed must be reasonable. In time, increasing numbers of Englishmen came to enjoy these rights.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 wherein King James II was ousted by William of Orange set the stage in 1689 for the English Bill of Rights. Among these rights, Englishmen were insured their right to speak freely without fear of retribution from the government, Protestants were allowed to bear arms, Parliament could not be dismissed by the king, and petitioning the government for a redress of government would be allowable. Again, over time, more and more citizens of England claimed these rights as their own. Importantly, when an Englishman emigrated to the English colonies, since he was still, technically on English soil, he did not forfeit his rights by leaving England.

Between the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, both documents addressed the raising of money by the government: taxation. Rather than taxes being arbitrarily determined by the monarch, they were to be determined by a group of prominent men who were selected from among the people. Prominent men became Parliament, and Parliament became the representative body which was selected from among the citizens.

Due to the distances between England and her colonies, it was considered impractical to directly rule from overseas. Thus, colonies were allowed to form local governments to take care of local business. As the colonists were no longer directly impacted by the day to day legislation of Parliament, it seemed inappropriate to have colonists participate in parliamentary matters back in England. Therefore, allowing distant colonies representation in Parliament appeared to be a moot point. On the other hand, government was necessary on a local colonial level. Passing needs and decisions across the Atlantic with a minimum of 12 weeks passage plus consideration of requests proved inefficient. Additionally, it quickly became apparent that those back in Mother England had limited understanding of the harsh realities faced by colonists. Practicality proved that a local government could best address local needs.

Still, the colonists prided themselves in being Englishmen - bearers of the same rights of those enjoyed in England. The values impressed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights were considered just as important in the New World as the Old. Colonists expected the right to a trial by their peers, that property could not be removed without due compensation, seeking a redress of grievances from government was allowable, representative lawmakers could not be dismissed by a higher authority, and money to be raised through taxation was to be determined by men who the colonists selected.

Colonial government differed somewhat from one colony to another, but most followed a model of a colonial assembly, a royal governor, and a council. The colonial assembly was determined by eligible voters in the colony - primarily white, landowning men. The royal governor was typically selected by the monarch of England and served as a direct representative of the king. The council was typically selected by the royal governor.

The role of the assembly was to make necessary legislation - including taxation for the needs of the colony. Again, the assembly members were selected by eligible voters. A bill being considered for law moved from the assembly to the council, which served as the upper house. Once approved, the bill slated for law was reviewed by the royal governor who could sign or veto it. Unlike today’s Senate, members of the council were not chosen by the colonists. Additionally, the council served as the high court, as well as advisors to the royal governor. While this system was fraught with snagging points, it served the colonial needs for government, largely for two reasons: 1) laws and taxation were initiated by representative colonists who had been selected by eligible voters, and 2) the colonists insisted on their right to pay the salaries of members of the council and the royal governor from their purses - thereby exercising some level of control over the actions of an otherwise detached group.

Most importantly, English colonists believed that their rights as Englishmen were intact. Despite the sting of not being included in Parliamentary participation, the reason for exclusion seemed to make some sense. And, with the allowance of implementing their rights in local government affairs which directly affected their daily existence, the colonists did not object - yet.

Jumping ahead, when America gained its independence, a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. These rights included many of the historical rights promoted by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, but also included particulars the Framers and Founders wanted codified as a result of their experience in being bullied by a tyrannical government. For instance, the First Amendment includes the right to seek a redress of grievances from one’s government; that definitely has its roots in both the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, as does freedom of speech and a jury trial. On the other hand, the Third Amendment is specific in preventing the government to require citizens to house soldiers in a time of peace, or during war unless legislated by Congress; this comes from their history with England’s occupation of the colonies.

In any event, like our colonial forefathers, we assume the rights of Americans apply to us today. (Unfortunately, I wonder how many of the ten most Americans could paraphrase.) We well know that we’re supposed to be allowed to speak freely, worship as we please, assemble with like minded people, contact our representative government and speak our minds, maintain a weapon, not have the government bust into our homes without warrant, have access to a trial of our peers, and...? Well, we know there are more - whatever they say. Most people are acutely aware of their right to freedom of speech, and due to the constant debates over gun ownership, are mindful of the Second Amendment.

To most Americans, the Bill of Rights seems to be of more importance than the Articles of the Constitution - probably the Bill of Rights covers guarantees to the people. The Articles provide the blueprint for government. Because they are somewhat tedious, we don’t pay much attention. And because we don’t pay much attention, the animals are maintaining the zoo.

Legend has it, that upon emerging from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and queried, “What form of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?” The wise, old Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” A republic is that form of government wherein people select representatives from their number who are given an appropriate amount of power to conduct the business of government. It is up to the people to select wisely and then hold the government accountable. If they don’t, our Constitution provides checks and balances to correct the abuse, but you won’t find the instructions for this in the Bill of Rights.

We can assume that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are mainstays of our country. But if we only have a vague understanding of the Rights, and next to nothing about the Articles, how can we hope to control the animals running the zoo?

In 1887, Lord Acton, a member of Parliament wrote a letter in which he penned the famous line “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Today’s members of government have the “run of the house,” so to speak. They bank on the masses not paying attention nor understanding the workings of government. Tragically, many of our elected officials are ignorant of the contents of the Constitution. Others hide behind obscure legal maneuvers to enable their actions. Still others brazenly thwart the system, Constitution be damned.

The rights of Americans are under attack. The tactics are sneaky, often tucked deeply into voluminous bills written by lobbyists and not read, nor understood by those we elected. The directive of the Declaration of Independence to form a government which protects the rights of the people has long been forgotten. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Upcoming Book: Part 1

Another book? Yep. Title? I don't know yet. Target audience? Concerned adults who need reminder and encouragement from America's roots in addressing today's broken government.

Many of us feel the need to get back to our roots. Those roots may be a vague understanding in our memory. We are sickened that today's children are not really learning America's legacy.

My upcoming book will attempt to draw parallels between our country's beginnings to today's experience. The Revolutionary experiences are strikingly similar to the occurrences of our current events.

Intuitively, most educated Americans are aware that the past speaks to today's news. However, we may not know how to focus our past on contemporary issues. My upcoming book will seek to bridge that gap.

Over the course of my next several entries, I'll share portions of the book as it develops. I hope you enjoy it! Jim

The Essence of the Declaration of Independence

Once upon a time, most school children could tell you the significance of the July 4, 1776. Not now. A query today would almost assuredly elicit the response, “Fireworks!” If you persisted with a followup question as to why, you’d get a blank stare, or perhaps “To blow things up.”

On April 19, 1775 the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World” reported. It marked the beginning of the Revolutionary War, or the War for Independence as it was known then. Despite the misconception that the American colonists stood united in this cause, people were widely divided in their opinions of a response to British oppression as well as appropriate response. Nonetheless, war had begun.

On May 10, 1775, delegates from the respective colonies were to meet in Philadelphia to strategize next steps. Debates were lengthy. The famous Olive Branch Petition seeking reconciliation was ignored as King George III and the Parliament got word of British troops being pushed back into Boston. Finally, on July 4, 1776, a letter had been approved which would be sent to England as explanation and justification for future actions: the Declaration of Independence.

The delegates felt the need to explain themselves. The letter announced the colonies would dissolve ties with England. From there, the cornerstone argument presented is that of basic beliefs, the subsequent need of government to protect the rights of the citizens, a recognition of the need for government and how that government is to be accountable to the people, the justification for change demanded by the people including the right to abolish the government, a listing of grievances suffered by the colonists under British rule, and a pledge by the signers to adhere to the pledge of the letter, unto separation of property, reputation and life.

Let us first examine the state of basic beliefs.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The signers of the Declaration felt that the beliefs they held dear were based on obvious truth: there is equality among men, God had given men specific rights which could not be removed, and to serve as example, the protection of one’s life, the right to be free, and the right to pursue endeavors which fulfilled a human - these were sacred. The key to this belief hinges on the origin of the rights, i.e. they come from God as a gift. As a God-given gift, the possession of these rights is above the dominion of other humans. That is, my right to life is sacred; you and your buddies cannot, by this set of foundational beliefs, remove it from me.

Based on this cornerstone belief concerning rights, action must be taken to protect the rights of all people:

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

The Founders created our country on the Foundation that 1) our Rights come from God and therefore cannot be taken away, and 2) the reason for establishing a government is to protect our God-given rights. (All officials in government, and all candidates running for public office should know this basic truth. The reason for the existence of a government, according to the Declaration, is to protect the God-given rights of the people.)

Now, I must ask a fundamental question: What if we become a nation that no longer believes in God - or even, that notwithstanding the existence of God, our rights come from another source. In that event, the Declaration’s basic premise is undermined. According to the Declaration, the existence of rights would be up for debate. For if the rights do not come from God, do they then come from the government? If the government, then what the government gives, the government can take away. Do they come from nature? Within the animal kingdom, species will kill their own, frequently - victory goes to the fittest. Shall we live by the rules of animals? If so, our code of conduct and our very safety is at stake, subject to the whims and capriciousness of others. Let’s move on.

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Should a government lose sight of its purpose and begins to destroy our rights, it is your right to change or get rid of it. Did the government give you that right? No! It is basic to your natural God-given rights. If not, then the Founders would not have called this action a right. For the action of changing or abolishing the government supersedes the very prominence of the government itself. The chain of command established is God, then people, then government. Further...

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Our Forefathers wisely recognized the value of a long-standing government and urged us not to foolishly attempt change it for trendy or temporal reasons. A government which had stood the test of time must have done so by successfully protecting its citizens. However, the Founders also understood that human nature tends towards inaction if the people can tolerate bad government. Reasons are not offered for failure to correct the bad government, so we must search ourselves as to why. Are we too busy? Perhaps we see the effort as insurmountable. Maybe we are not interested in politics. Have we grown “fat” and lazy? Now listen to this...

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism...

Abuse is fairly obvious. Usurpation means taking power that does not belong to me. So when our government becomes abusive of our God-given rights, and begins taking our power away from us, without our consent, and the goal becomes clear that the government is attempting to put the people under a form of total control... then what?

... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Notice, the right to change or eliminate the bad government is not a privilege - it is a right. Again, if the people have a right which trumps the very existence of their government, the right would, by the Founders’ definition, be a God-given right. At this point, the signers of the Declaration up the ante, so to speak. They pronounce that taking action against a government run amok is more than a God-given right; it is the duty of the people to take action - making change when possible, but abolishing the government if necessary for the welfare and protection of the people. If you believe your country, its people, yourselves, and your children are in danger, this Declaration does not give you the privilege, it is more than even the right... it is your DUTY to provide new Guards for your future security.

Our country was established on the premise that the people are above, and must control a government which fails to protect the God-given rights of the people. Once the people fail to remain vigilant, and expect the government to run itself, the people are in grave danger of tyranny. Active participation by the citizenry is not only expected, it is demanded. Further, having a clear picture of the basic beliefs of our Founders is paramount to maintaining the legacy they created and bequeathed.

Democrats: The Party of the Downtrodden?

How is it the Democrats traditionally bamboozle the masses into believing they are the party of the little guy? Clinton was often mimicked for the phrase, “I feel your pain.” That despite Hilary holding up air traffic in LA while a Hollywood stylist coiffed her hair.

Why is it the mainstream media chooses not to highlight the lavishness at which the Obamas enjoy the Presidency? The previous trip to Europe seemed more than a bit over the top, but now, we have the trip to India.

The President’s entourage includes 40 commercial jets. In the Taj Mahal Hotel, they’ve booked 470 rooms, plus an abundance of others for the peons who don’t get the Taj Mahal. Four Marine choppers are being dismantled and then reassembled in India for sightseeing. Conservative estimates? Over $100 million. Impact on the taxpayers? Priceless.

George W. Bush, while not being my favorite President, was often slammed as a oil tycoon. His Texas ranch hosts an eco-friendly estate. Al Gore has eco-draining mansions. Yet, somehow, he gets a Nobel Peace Prize for his enlightening revelations about climate change.

Then there’s Nancy Pelosi - Speaker of the House. Her net worth can’t be pinpointed, but estimates range between $25-$92 million. As part of the financial bailout package, somehow, her husband, Paul Pelosi, won some very lucrative deals with exclusive investments. As far as being a wealthy Democrat, Pelosi is not alone. Of the 15 wealthiest members of Congress, 9 are Democrats.

In 2010, Obama had a net worth of over $10 million. After taxes, his income left him with a measly disposable income of somewhere over $3 million - for that year. Wanting to stay in shape, our President has a personal trainer, Reggie Love, who gets a paycheck of $102,000 courtesy of the taxpayers. But that’s okay; the President needs to be physically fit for all the golf he plays.

From where did this fiction come which is entrenched in party identity that Democratic candidates emerged from the downtrodden? The only connection I see is their pandering of that voter block. It’s pathetic. The politicians who promise deliverance depend on the ignorance of their constituents. As long as the elite liberals can keep the lower socio-economic group believing the Democrats are the party of the “little guy,” the longer they can enjoy their power. The strategy has not changed for decades. The mantra is to vote for the caring Democrat and he/she will deliver you from poverty. In truth, the Democrat plan is little more than post Civil War plantation economics. It’s a recurring story of the sharecropper who can never escape because he is in debt to the master.

Democrats rely on an ignorant voter base. The less that group understands, they easier they are to fool. The more you can tie them in to social programs that provide their basic needs, the more that group is married to continuing the feeding trough. Why would people who get welfare, food stamps, housing, and medical care ever want to turn off the flow of subsidy?

Excerpt from Chapter 2 - United States History: Roots through Constitution

You've been dying to read an excerpt from the next chapter. You couldn't sleep at night...you couldn't concentrate at work...you couldn't eat. Okay, maybe you could eat.

Well here we go, an excerpt from United States History: Roots through Constitution

Chapter 2: Christianity Jumps the “Puddle”

A Split in the Church and a Flight from Persecution

In the first chapter, you learned that Christianity was introduced to Rome largely through the efforts of the Apostle Paul. However, the Roman government did not jump up and down saying, “Yippy, Skippy, isn’t Paul a hero?” No, in fact, Paul loses his life for his efforts; he upset many powerful people who demanded his death. Nonetheless, the proverbial cat was let out of the bag; people were hungry for a personal relationship with the one true God, and like it or not, Mr. Caesar, Christianity took root in Europe. Within time, the fledgling (young and small) Church of Rome would evolve into the Roman Catholic Church, and Catholicism would spread throughout Europe.

What is Catholicism? Perhaps you are a Catholic, or know friends who are. For those who don’t know the meaning of the term, let’s take just a moment to explain. The literal meaning of Catholic comes from the Greek language; the word katholikos is an adjective meaning universal. The “plan” incorporated the belief that the church of Jesus Christ would become universal, or the church of all believers. Over time, the practices of the Roman Catholic Church helped define the identity and characteristics of Catholicism. Examples: The Apostle Peter is considered to be the Father of the Church based on the scripture from the Book of Matthew, “He (Jesus) said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter said in reply, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus said to him in reply, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew: 16:15-19.) Another belief: there is only one holy and apostolic church (a church whose leadership has been handed down from the Apostle Peter. A third belief: Jesus was crucified on the cross and bodily rose from the dead on the third day. A fourth: the head of the church, here on earth, is the pope.

Have you ever watched the news and seen the current pope, Pope Benedict XVI (16^th) addressing a crowd, offering a prayer, or cruising around in his Popemobile? The word pope comes from the Latin term, papa, meaning father. The Catholic Church would need a church father, or leader, to assist the universal church in following a consistent course outlined by God. Catholic tradition holds that the Apostle Peter was the first pope, and followed by Pope Linus (not the one from the Peanuts comic strip). A belief in the Catholic Church is that all popes are successors of the Apostle Peter. As a successor, there would be a laying on of the hands, and with prayer of empowering the incoming pope, the blessing that Jesus gave to Peter would be passed on to successive popes. Therefore, each pope would have special insights as to God’s will. In fact, the pope would be the final authority for the Catholic Church in determining meaning of the Bible and being able to gain full understanding of God’s intent for faith, morality, and life in general. Should any matter arise that created dispute among believers, the pope would have final authority to clarify God’s will. Following the Fall of the Roman Empire, approximately 500 AD, churches became even more important influences of stability in Europe; the power and protection of Rome eroded, and Europe was in a state of unpredictability. As the Roman Catholic Church served to stabilize the uncertain continent of Europe, the pope gained much power in the eyes of believers.

Over the centuries, there have been many popes who have been faithful to serve God, and a few who have abused their position of power and brought shame upon the church. Power can be a dangerous thing in the hands of some. For instance, millions of Americans own guns and drive cars. But a gun in the wrong hands of an evil person, can prove disastrous. A car driven by a drunk or careless driver, can cause untimely death to innocent people. Power, in the hands of some people, can also lead to calamity. In 1770, William Pitt the Elder, a British politician spoke this in Parliament: "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it..." A century later, Lord Acton, a British historian, echoed those thoughts when he penned this famous quote: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (You better memorize that quote, I’ll be repeating it a bunch in this book. In fact, memorize Lord Acton’s name as well. You toss that quote out and people will be impressed; you mention the guy’s name who coined the phrase, and well, people will probably give you $5 just for the privilege of knowing you.)

During the development and history of the Catholic Church, a few practices were followed that became a problem for some believers. Catholicism embraces the belief that believers should do acts of good works while on earth (example: helping a widow or orphan). But a practice took root incorporating the teaching that these acts would earn the believer merit points, accumulated to earn one’s way into heaven. Through the course of living a really holy life, a believer would earn more merit than he or she actually needed to get into heaven. So, what would become of those extra points when the believer died? Well, those points would become stored in the Treasure House of Merit. For what purpose? If another believer sinned, they might be able to purchase what was known as an indulgence – an assurance, sometimes on paper, of forgiveness. See, the idea was that the sinner was buying the merits earned by the first believer who didn’t need those credits to get into heaven. The effect of this was that many Catholics were led to believe this was God’s plan, and in the meantime, the Church was making money be selling the concept of forgiveness.

As mentioned, these kinds of practices led to problems among some people, people such as a German monk named Martin Luther. In 1517, Luther confronted a preacher named Johann Tetzel for selling indulgences to raise money for the reconstruction of Saint Peter’s Basilica. Luther was outraged by the practice of forgiving believers’ sins through the payment of money. He cited the Bible in proclaiming that forgiveness comes through a believer’s faith in Jesus as the redeemer. Luther wrote a paper we know as the Ninety-five Theses rejecting practices such as the selling of indulgences, took them to the Castle Church in Wittenberg, and purportedly posted them on the doors to

the church on October 31, 1517. By doing so, he was announcing his challenge to the Catholic Church leadership as a debate to be held at the University of Wittenberg. Basically, Luther was calling out the church for scaring Catholics into giving money to the church out of fear they hadn’t been good enough to get into heaven. For this and other attacks on the church, Luther was excommunicated (kicked out) of the Roman Catholic Church.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Ephesians 2:8

The year 1517 serves as the birthday of the Protestant Reformation. Many churches which we either attend, or drive by, today were birthed from this movement. Examples of these churches include Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Calvinist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, and many more. Just as Christians made their split from Judaism at the time of Jesus Christ, Protestant churches were comprised of former Catholics who decided to separate from Catholicism in protest (Protestant) over certain practices of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther contended that individual believers could understand the words of God directly as they were enabled by God’s Holy Spirit. Therefore, they really didn’t need a church leader such as the pope, to interpret matters of God; believers could do so independently. So, while Protestants and Catholics believed in the same God, the same Jesus, the same Bible, there was a split within Christian churches; the Catholic Church continued as it had, and new Protestant churches were springing up with believers who chose to separate themselves from the dependence on the Pope and other Catholic practices such as salvation from good works and forgiveness based on indulgences.

Enter King Henry VIII of England. England, like most other European nations was a Catholic nation at the time. Please understand, that during the Middle Ages, the influence of the church and church leadership was MUCH greater than what we experience in the United States today. For instance, if the Pope was the “hotline” to God, then the government dare not ignore the counsel nor directives from the Pope. Back to Henry: he was married to Catherine of Aragon. Like all kings, Henry looked forward to passing the British throne on to an heir, and preferably a son. Unfortunately, Catherine produced only one daughter, and the future of not having a male heir proved too depressing for Henry. So, he sought a method of getting rid of Catherine and replacing her with a new wife. Today, divorce is very common. In the 1500s, it was not. Why? Because the Bible speaks against divorce, and the Pope, speaking for the Catholic Church, did not allow it.

In July of 1530, King Henry sent a letter to Pope Clementine VII asking for an exception – seeking an annulment (basically, a cancellation) of his marriage to Catherine. The Pope declined permission, and so, it seemed Henry would be stuck with Catherine. However, this was occurring at roughly the same time as the Protestant Reformation. Call it trickery or coincidence, King Henry claimed to have a divine revelation (a discovery given from God). Henry contended that God wanted him to start a new church in England wherein the King of England, and not the Pope, would be the head of the church. The king would have direct access to God’s will and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. (Pretty good timing for old Henry, eh?)

Want to know what happens next? Buy the book! It's only $12...you can't even get a cheap haircut for that amount. A lousy haircut lasts, perhaps, a month. The learning from this book will last you a lifetime! Link to my website and learn how to order.

Excerpt from Chapter 1 - United States History: Roots through Constitution

Several friends suggested I include some excepts from my book, United States History: Roots through Constitution on my blog as a method of getting you to understand just how badly you want to buy this book. It's available through Amazon, CreateSpace (if you link from my page), or you can buy it directly through me for much faster service and less expensive shipping.

The book is over 250 pages of factually researched history, with references provided in the bibliography. While I intended the book as a text for teens, of the 5 well-educated adults who read the book and provided feedback, they each said they were utterly surprised at how much they learned.

Perhaps you are thinking, "Look, I already passed American History." Maybe so, but the future of the American legacy is at risk, and most people can use a reminder of our roots. Secondly, consider all the worthless gifts we give people. Would an investment in the future of a son/daughter or grandchild be worth the $12.00? After having taught for 30 years in public schools, I can pretty much guarantee - most of today's teens are not getting this information unless they happened to get some throwback like me, or you made a personal commitment to provide this information yourself.

So, over the next few weeks, I'll be cutting and pasting portions of the chapters into my blog. Unfortunately, I cannot include the graphics and sidebars. If you'd like to contact me directly, you may email me at constitutiontoday@gmail.com. Thank you.

Chapter 1: The Indelible Beginnings that Define America

Judaism and Christianity

Want to know what the target is? Go to the end of this chapter and look at the review questions. Before you start a job, it’s always nice to know what people are expecting of you.

America is considered to be a Christian nation; have you wondered why? (Probably not, but play along with me, okay?) Granted, people of a wide variety of religious backgrounds have come here, but the USA is not considered to be a Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Muslim, Rastafarian, nor a Taoist nation. And here’s a thought: would the United States even be the same country if it were not for Christianity?

Christianity has had a huge impact on American History. I mean huge – as in really BIG. Even large, enormous, perhaps even gigantamundo. (Spellcheck didn’t recognize that last one.) Discussing the roots of American History without considering the role of Christianity would be like thinking about polka without dots, pizza without cheese, or Star Wars without the Force.

Am I suggesting other religions didn’t play a part in shaping America? Of course they did. Actually, they are now having a bigger affect than they did in our beginnings. Back in the day, though, Christianity was the MAIN player. Consider the metaphor of a cake. (You don’t remember what a metaphor is? It’s a comparison between two things to help form a conceptual understanding. There, now you remember. And I’m not even going to charge you for a Language Arts lesson.) Back to the cake. A cake has many ingredients, right? Flour, water, eggs, sugar, baking powder and some oil or shortening. Once the cake is baked and then frosted, you can add a bunch of decorations such as sprinkles, coconut, chocolate chips, candles, and pillow cases (just checking to see if you’re paying attention). Which parts are necessary to have the cake? Could we eliminate the coconut and still have cake? The flavor would change, but we could have a non-coconut cake, right? We could do away with the sprinkles, chocolate chips, and even the frosting (Calm down, I’m not going to make you give up frosting). The point is, the actual cake is the combination of the flour, sugar, water, eggs, baking soda, and shortening. How about cutting out the flour? We’re not going to get a cake by combining sugar, water, eggs, baking soda and shortening. In fact, if you serve that for your birthday, it’ll probably be the last time friends come over. Okay, now for the metaphor: Let’s say America is the cake. The American cake of today has many decorations on it. The ingredients

include many different religions and belief systems. What’s the flour? The flour of the American cake is Christianity. So, bon appetit. (Pronounced bone appa-teet - French for “Good Eating.”)

“Is this important?” you ask. Of course it’s important! Why else would I have included this information? Understanding that Christianity is a key part of the foundation of the United States is not only important – it is essential. Without this fundamental knowledge, understanding America’s DNA (genetic composition) is almost impossible. It would be like saying that I understand you without knowing what you believe, or how you arrive at the most important decisions of your life. If you are experiencing emotional conflict, guilt, depression, anxiety, etc – how could I possibly understand why if I didn’t know what is important in your belief system? Without understanding Christianity’s impact on America, it is impossible to understand many of the problems our country struggles with today. (More on this later.)

During the following explanations, you may periodically wonder, “What does all this religious background have to do with American History?” (Don’t tune out! If you tried to explain your favorite role playing game to a newbie - or especially a parent, it would take some time set the stage, right?)

History is much more than a listing of facts, and anybody who tries to present it that way should be banned from teaching. More than dates, names, places, and occurrences, history is a story that answers how and why. Knowing how something came to pass and the reason that something happened is what we’re after... or should be. Reciting that America was founded as a Christian nation reflects knowledge, but knowing why that is important, and how it occurred reflects understanding. When you can explain those kinds of things, people listen to you with respect, and start inviting you to all their parties. So, let’s begin...

Obama Removes God & Insults Mexican Intelligence

On Friday, September 17, our President addressed the Hispanic Caucus Institute where he made two VERY interesting statements. The most alarming was the first.

(Link to speech)

While quoting the familiar beginning of the Declaration of Independence, President Obama said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Did you catch the omission? It’s no small deal.

The actual wording is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights...” Nitpicky? Hardly. By changing that line, the basis of the Declaration of Independence is undermined.

When the Founders resisted England by penning and sending the Declaration of Independence, they were justifying their behavior on the FACT that they had certain God-given rights. England, nor any other government, had the dominion over these natural rights, as they had been endowed (given) by God - not man.

If these natural rights were simply endowed, then the question is, by whom? If not God, then it would be left to the government. If you doubt this, read the Constitution. And if the government gives these rights, then it is the government’s dominion to remove them. (Inalienable means, they cannot be removed.)

By omitting that phrase, Obama changes the basis of our country. He, by decree, takes the position of government having the supreme power over your rights. Whereas the Founders declared independence on the foundation that no government can remove natural rights as they were given to men by God; the removal of that phrase removes the sanctity of the rights.

Slip of the tongue, you say? No 8th grader left my class without knowing, memorizing, and reciting that passage (as well as more) of the Declaration of Independence. Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago. He didn’t forget. No, when Obama promised to fundamentally change this country, he meant it.

The second “mistake” in the speech typifies the lack of respect people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and here, Obama, pay to people of color. They access and maintain power by leading minorities into embracing the victim mentality. Rather than pointing to role models such as Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Bill Cosby, by saying, “Look, if you work hard enough, you can rise above your poverty, your circumstances, your plight.” Instead they convince the masses that they’ll never be anything without the government taking care of them.

Toward the end of the speech, President Obama said, “Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. To British and French, to Dutch and Spanish, ... (loudly) to Mexican... (applause)...to countless...” Okay, let’s see, Americans declared their independence in 1776. The concept of America was already rooted prior to the Declaration. Mexico declared independence from Spain in 1821 - 45 years after America. At what point does a Mexican become a recognizable national? Americans officially became American when they won the Revolutionary War and formed a nation. Prior to that, they were citizens of the British Empire. The concept of being an “American” started emerging after 1763. So, how is that long before America was even an idea, the continent was inhabited by Mexicans? Does he mean mestizos (a blending of the Spanish and the Indians either taken as wives, or...)? Or was he referring to Criollos - those born in Latin American, who according to the caste system were lower than Peninsulares who were born in Spain, but higher than mestizos, cholos, mulatos, indios, zambos, and at the bottom of their system, the blacks. (Oh, yeah, another inconvenient fact - slavery was introduced and practiced in Latin America first. I wonder why Obama didn’t scold his audience for that? Probably the Reverend Wright did include that part in his sermons, but Obama missed it.) Obama is counting of the Hispanic audience to NOT know their history. The applause he gained by saying this provides his confirmation. Well-played Mr. President; just like a puppeteer.

In one speech, President Obama managed to garner support from a voter block he considers ignorant enough not to catch his historical gambit, while at the same time removing God from the position of being the fundamental benefactor of our inalienable rights. Those rights, once a gift from God, belong in the hands of somebody else, according to our President. Suddenly, the rights don’t seem so inalienable.

Are We Allowed to be America?

Three times I’ve flown from the East Coast to the West. If the cruising altitude is low enough, one can watch the urbanization of the East become the Bread Basket, then climb to the rugged Rockies. Beyond the Rockies, I breathe a sigh of relief as I get back to my beloved West. Things seem much more sane here. That is, until I see the urbanization again.

Don’t get me wrong; I enjoy the fruits of technological progress. I’m not so simple as to think I’d be able to enjoy the comforts I do without the industrialization we’ve experienced. But at the same time, I can’t help but reflect on the relative brief existence of the United States, and the changing landscape that passed from lush forests, barren plains, harsh deserts, unfettered rivers - wild nature, into a harnessed landscape that includes ghettoes, freeways, urban sprawl, graffiti, and housing developments. How could it have been different? I really don’t know. But I always feel sorry for the Indians.

No, I’m not going to rant and rave about all the Native Americans being one big happy family that lived peacefully until the white man came and utopia was ruined. At one point, their ancestors migrated into North America. Competing tribes either avoided one another, formed trade alliances (capitalism), or annihilated one another. From torturing one’s enemy to discover how manly he was, to removing scalps while the victim was alive, to fornicating with a variety of men to obtain their spiritual powers - I think SOME Indians had SOME issues. Bottom line? They are human beings - not immune to the same temptations as any other human being, yet capable of the same heroism as other humans.

The point is, they had an established culture with a small enough population base to allow a migratory lifestyle in “paradise.” Between the Spanish and the English, paradise, as the Indians knew it, was lost. While many of the Indians tried to accommodate the European arrivals, others resisted.

Following the French and Indian War (1863), an Ottawa tribal leader, known as Chief Pontiac led an uprising against the English colonists in the Ohio River Valley. Up until that war, the French had a stranglehold on the area around the Great Lakes. The French had formed treaties with the Huron nation, providing firearms so the Hurons could stand up against their fierce enemies, the Iroquois. At any rate, most of the Natives preferred the French over the British because the French fur trappers were not altering the land with European style farming as the British were. Further, France couldn’t entice many settlers to brave the dangers of colonization whereas English colonists were exceeding 2 million in number. With the defeat of France, Pontiac correctly predicted the end of the Indian culture as he knew it. His uprising was an attempt to stave off the onslaught. If I had been an Indian back then, I fancy myself being in the resistance - although I don’t celebrate the brutality.

Today, I feel somewhat like Pontiac. America’s borders are porous. Like then, today’s natives, Americans, can’t agree on the correct approach. The “nice” thing to do is to allow more and more people to come. “America was built upon immigration!” is a familiar defense. “What right do we have to tell others the door is shut?” Interestingly, the reason for the debate has to do with illegal immigration. I’ve never heard anyone attack legal immigration. For me, the question becomes, Does any country have the right to enforce immigration laws? It’s as rhetorical as asking, Do you have the right to determine who comes in your home? Just as the resources in your home were intended to provide for your family, the resources, paid for through taxation, were intended to provide for the American family, as well as those who entered legally as guests to the “home.” It’s not selfish; it’s basic. Stick with the “your home” example. If you arrive home tonight to find 2 intruders there who justify their presence by saying, “We mowed the lawn. That helps your household. You can’t get by without us. By the way, we ate the leftovers and you’re out of toilet paper,” is it fair of you to call the police to have the intruders removed - forcefully if necessary? If not, give me your address? If so, how is it any different for the American family? The principle is the same.

Arizona is being victimized by the federal government. The United States government is not securing its borders - a basic Constitutional obligation. By law, employers can be fined for hiring illegal immigrants, and up until recently, one of the presumed effective methods of controlling the flow of illegals was to crack down on employers who didn’t stick to the high road when hiring. The thought was, if employers wouldn’t hire illegals, the illegals would not be coming for American jobs. So come on, you greedy employers, ante up, and hire legal citizens or those with green card status. But now, Arizona is being sued by the federal government for practicing discrimination by asking for proof of legal status. “Show me your green card” has become an act of hatred and racism. Now back to your home: The cops couldn’t ask the intruders to prove they were members of your family; that would be discrimination.

On another front, our culture is being asked to accommodate Sharia law - even to the extent practiced by the Fundamental Movement and Extremists within Islam. Large numbers of these people will move to a common area or locale, forming a community. No issue so far, as just about every group of ethnic people have done in America since our beginnings. However, many of the practices will run counter to not only American culture, but American law - and in their view, the imam (religious leader) is their authority - not a secular law which runs counter to the Qu’ran. Examples: a person caught drinking alcohol should be whipped; men may beat their wives if the woman is deemed uppity; literal enforcement of an eye for an eye; a thief must have his hand cut off; highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated; execution of homosexuals; execution of Muslim critics of Islam and possible execution for non-Muslims; and adulterers are to be stoned to death. This is not an indictment of Islam; I’m reflecting on Fundamental and Extremists declaring that Sharia Law dictates their culture - within our country. If you follow the news of these communities expanding, you’ll see a recurring pattern: the community will be absorbed, the community claims they are adhering to their cultural practices, cops will be called in to deal with domestic violence or some other form of brutality, the imam and community leaders will scream “Racism” or “Intolerance” and gradually insist that their practices become acceptable - despite flying in the face of existing law. The irony is, that at the root of the most fundamental practices is the tenet that western ideology and culture is bad...evil, and needs to be abolished. The very culture providing a home for the immigrant is seen as the enemy to be eradicated.

Their practice has nothing to do with the great melting pot we learned about in grade school. In that teaching, we learned that a variety of ingredients makes for a great recipe as the blending of strengths, talents, and gifts makes for a stronger nation. In that scenario, the immigrants were coming to America for a better life - looking forward to becoming an American - embracing the values, freedoms, and responsibilities cherished and expected in the United States. Our present situation is more akin to the cowbird - a parasitic bird which moves in on nests made primarily by songbirds, destroys the songbird eggs or just lays her own eggs in amongst the others. The songbird serves as the host, bringing food back for the hatchlings. The cowbird chicks aggressively steal the food, and the songbird chicks starve or are pushed out of the nest. As a species, the songbird then struggles for survival in the habitat taken over by cowbirds, and eventually must find new habitat or perish.

Like that of the Indians, our culture is in danger of perishing. We are being told by the current administration we have no right to determine who enters our home. We are being told that our foundational roots of Judeo-Christian values and beliefs are non-inclusive and even hateful. Our teachers and professors rail from one side of their mouths about the Europeans coming over and wiping out functional, sophisticated, evolved cultures, and from the other side preach that our present culture is exclusive, bigoted, egocentric, and needs to accommodate.

Congress holds the key to real power in this country. For too long we have given them a pass, blithely believing that somehow the balance of power, and checks and balances, would protect us. In November, we have an opportunity to put the brakes on runaway government. It’s not about Republicans vs. Democrats. It’s about preserving American values and culture. If America is to be saved as a nation, we can no longer have “politics as usual.” Congress (and all federal employees and officials) need a wake-up call to remind them that their power comes from the people; that our nation was founded on the belief of government obeying the will of the People. Today, both parties are out of touch with real America. Lobbyists, unions, and select billionaires are running the country - controlling the stock market, pulling the strings of public officials and buying power. This is not the America described by our Declaration of Independence and our US Constitution. It is time to return to the concept of everyday citizens representing their community and state for a limited term, as opposed to a lifetime of tenure in Congress - completely out of touch with the problems of the average taxpayer. America is hemorrhaging, and it’s time for us citizens to put pressure on the wound.

Should a Book Be Judged by its Cover?

Among the highest compliments a teacher can hope to receive is when his student says, “I learned a lot from you.” Talk about a gratifying statement! Surpassing that is when an 84 year-old Stanford educated man with a great deal of wisdom, a female retired school teacher, and a successful businessman who has a voracious appetite for reading each say, “I can’t believe how much I learned from reading your book.”

The book in question was the completed proof (first published draft) I had asked these three adults to read as a favor to me, hoping they’d catch errors I’d overlooked. (The retired school teacher won - by a large margin.) The reason their compliments meant so much to me was because a) I knew they were being genuine, and b) the target audience is teens in the 13-18 year range.

If you’re reading this blog, chances are excellent that you took American History back in the day. What do you remember? How was the material presented? Was your brain and maturity level ready to receive it? When I’ve traveled to Philadelphia, Boston, DC, Mount Vernon, or Williamsburg, which is the population who appreciates the historical display most? Adults. Teenagers are commonly rolling their eyes, ready to buy a t-shirt, and get back to their Facebook. What a shame that we don’t take history classes as adults; it’s then that we have enough patience and experience to begin appreciating it.

Well, here’s your chance - my shameless self-promotion. Using the aforementioned three adults as unintentional guinea pigs, I learned that my writing was enjoyable and educational for adults as well as teens. They genuinely enjoyed reading the book. The 50-something business man told me he had a very difficult time focusing on editing because he got so caught up in the story weaved. Additionally, I asked for the book back before he finished so I might review his corrections and stick to deadlines, and he didn’t want to give it up. Most flattering.

What I tried to capture was the cause and effect story of America, starting with religious roots planted following the split between Christianity and Judaism. We then move to Europe as the Apostle Paul faces trial in Rome. From there, by means of the Catholic Church, Christianity spreads through Europe, assisted by Gutenberg’s movable printing press. Division in the church occurs as Martin Luther challenges the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the king of England sees this as an opportunity to off his wife. However, with the increased liberalism of the Church of England, there is religious backlash, which eventually leads to our Pilgrims. Between the exodus of Separatists and the desire of explorers to find an all-water route to Asia, colonialism is built upon an economic system known as mercantilism, and soon, the monopolized colonial worker bees resent it. That notwithstanding, colonists are fiercely proud of their English heritage - particularly their rights grounded in the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights. England increasingly views colonists as provincials not worthy of equality - perhaps they are English by heritage, but certainly not the real McCoy. Tensions build as England passes a series of laws designed to keep the colonies under control. Most today remember the famous Boston Tea Party, but do not recall (or perhaps ever learned) of the frustrating decade leading to that protest - a protest which released oppressive wrath from the king and Parliament. Tension builds upon martial law for another 2 years. Blood is shed at Lexington, and an illegal gathering of colonial leaders must decide if turning back is preferable to the likelihood of hanging as traitors if they move forward. At this point, less than half the population was ready to go to war. The book covers the Declaration of Independence and its meaning, the Revolutionary War, the reasons the country almost fell apart after the victory, and the need for the Constitution. The Constitution is included in its entirety, punctuated with explanations in modern day language of each paragraph.

It’s not a glitzy, glossy paged book with color pages. To keep the book affordable, I opted for black and white - although pictures and graphics are included. It’s priced at a mere $12. You can obtain the book by visiting my website: http://jimbrigleb.com and clicking on the link to the book. So brush up on your history. Or buy the book for your son, daughter, grandchildren, or an acquaintance sadly uninformed about the legacy of our country. Maybe you should buy one for your public library, a homeschooler, the American History teacher at your local school who mistakenly learned that all the Founders were a bunch of rich, selfish, slave owners. The book is called: United States History: Roots through Constitution, subtitled Our Disappearing Legacy.

Overwhelming the System

Trying to analyze "the logic" of what's been passed by Congress during the past year, I've come to the conclusion that the actions are not stupidity - they are deliberate with an underlying agenda to dismantle capitalism in America. The following article was forwarded to me, and I'd encourage you to read from a man who attended college alongside Obama.

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Overwhelm the system

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT

Barach Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate ( Columbia University , class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University . They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America . But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.