Unions Have Ruined Public Education

Education in our country must be re-vamped. The best way to do this is to provide citizens with a non-monopolistic choice, allowing taxpayers to support educational entities which provide superior instruction.

I spent 30 years teaching in the classrooms of public schools. There, I worked with many committed teachers who were devoted to providing excellent instruction. However, there were many among the ranks who had neither the ability nor desire to be an effective teacher. However, the NEA and local unions protected these liabilities, and administrators were powerless to get the “dead wood” out. Who suffered? First the children, then the community, and ultimately, the country at large. At one time, unions protected employees from abusive employers; now they’ve grown into political monsters that are out of control. They control the teachers’ contributions to the point where a teacher has no say in the union whatsoever, if that teacher elects to have his “political contribution” withheld from his dues. The unions are dominated by liberals who promise continued pay raises irrespective of the economy, increased benefits, and increased academic freedom. As a result, there is virtually no power of community standards which can touch the local public school.

Ironically, whether or not a community agrees with the ideology of the liberal movement, they end up supporting it. How? Well, the payroll of a public school is funded by the taxpayers. In most states, unions are a closed shop proposition - the employee has no choice and must belong. A significant percentage of the employee’s dues to the union end up as political contributions to the NEA. - one of the biggest and most liberal unions in the country. The NEA backs liberal candidates 100% of the time. It’s a racket!

Leftist agendas are now firmly entrenched in the entire educational model. College students seeking to become future teachers are indoctrinated as to what is “open minded” and politically correct. As a matter of course, tomorrow’s teachers learn curricula which presumes that global warming caused by human technology is a FACT. That evolution is a FACT, and that evaluation of concepts such as “intelligent design” (such as Creation) are not only baseless and mythical, they MUST be excluded due to “Separation of Church and State.” Instruction in literature is increasingly based on stories which attack traditional values. Geography focuses less on knowledge of traditional geographical concepts, but more on an agenda of globalization.

Because of budgetary considerations, when teacher openings exist, who gets hired? Thanks to the union pay scale, teachers on the bottom of the pay scale - those fresh out of college. The ranks quickly fill with freshly indoctrinated teachers eager to push their college-learned agenda down the throats of their students. They have no experience nor wisdom. Most have no children of their own, and consequently cannot understand the angst of parents feeling helpless over what goes on in the classroom. Most have never held a job in the private sector, and sadly, are completely out of touch that their salary comes from the taxpayer. Oh, but they have energy. When a staff turnover happens quickly, the result is the ranks fill with rookie teachers, too arrogant to listen to the older and fewer mentors, anxious to fill coaching and advising positions to beef up their paycheck, but often having no work ethic in terms of working on their profession a minute past 3:00; after all, the contract doesn’t require it.

In defense of the public schools, unlike private businesses, they are not allowed to choose the “workers” by whom they are measured. In other words, school success is now measured by standardized test scores, drop-out rates, and graduation numbers. If you were an employer of a private company, you’d be very selective about which “employees” you accepted to help your company reach the top. However, public schools do not get to turn away students who will ultimately accomplish the results by which the school is measured. Public schools take on drug addicts, children who are abused and neglected, criminals, the learning disabled, the illegal immigrant, and more. Based on the community being considered, the resultant scores, drop-out rates, and graduation numbers might have very little to do with the quality of instruction.

Additionally, the pressure to improve the school’s standing can, and does, lead to dishonest practices within the school. In my community, a black athlete attended fewer than two years of high school, and at the time of what would be his senior year, was allowed to take tests for the classes he missed - put in a room where he used his cell phone to access Cha-Cha (an online answer-providing service), and ultimately the district falsified his transcript by adding classes he never attended - all so this minority kid could graduate and not be a drop-out statistic. (I know this because his parents are some of our closest friends. They completely opposed the school is this action but were ignored.)

Originally, public education in our country existed to teach children to read, and read primarily the Bible. Anyone can look at the contents of a hornbook if they doubt this. Harvard University began as a college to prepare pastors. And why read the Bible? Because it served to provide insight as to the values embraced by the people, thus acting as a common “cement” for our country.

Today? Today we read news stories of a boy in elementary school being suspended and required to get counseling because he told a friend that he would pray for his problems. Today, my children are required to sit in a “health” class wherein all students are expected to be sexually active, and learn the mechanics of homosexuality. Today, learning about the Constitution is ignored or marginalized. Today, most students can tell you about Martin Luther King, Jr, but have never heard of James Madison, and if they know who wrote the Declaration of Independency, it’s probably that white slave owner who raped Sally Hemings. Today, they know nothing of Latin, but are encouraged to take Spanish so they can show sensitivity to illegals. Today, they learn that diversity is good and that there are no real right answers to moral problems; that to express any value as worthy is paramount to intolerance, (and thereby show intolerance for opposing viewpoints other than those espoused by liberalism).

For those of us who truly believe that competition in the marketplace leads to excellence in product, why do we continue to give public education a monopoly? Please point to any historical example of a monopoly that provided the best product at the best price. Granted, parents may choose to homeschool or send their children to existing private schools, but their taxes are monopolistically fed to the public school system.

Opponents of the voucher argue that this would cause a flight of the upper mild class families and leave the “at-risk” children in public schools. Further, private schools are not held to the same standards in terms of testing. As to the first point, giving the opportunity to make money, there would be scores of schools cropping up with the niche in mind to address “at-risk” kids. If parents were neglectful and didn’t capitalize on the opportunity, perhaps it would be time to evaluate the appropriateness of trying to teach a drug baby about metaphor and simile, and hoping that he’ll be able to pass geometry. Maybe bringing in illegal aliens who had a third grade education in Mexico and putting him in an 8th grade English class studying persuasive writing is a disservice to everyone. Perhaps, some of these students need to be given a break from the template of going to college and given a meaningful education on being a valuable citizen with work ethics, personal economics, and societal needed workers among the blue collar ranks. There is no shame in that; society cannot exist without those workers!

Much of the reason our society is in shambles is due to the educational system - the very one we hope will keep our country moving in the right direction. By allowing liberalism to control our public school system, we are guaranteed a society which fosters liberalism, where competition is a bad thing, religion is a bad thing, marriage is a bad thing, the free market is a bad thing, and the Founding Fathers - well they were all bad as well. Brainwash the children, and you can be guaranteed of a future similar to what we see among generations of welfare and entitlement recipients. It becomes self-perpetuating.

In 2012, Conservatives face an opportunity to take the Senate and potentially the Oval Office. If there was any one time in my lifetime I’d say we are ripe for educational overhaul, it is now. Let the NEA dominate the public schools. BUT, Congress (and hopefully the Executive branch) need to push through tax allowances for parents to take their children elsewhere.

When I taught in Central Washington (prior to 2007), I wanted to impress upon the students how much it cost the taxpayers to pay for their education. I spoke with the district financial people to get specifics. By the time all money was factored in and averaged, it ran a little over $7,000 per student - in Central Washington! Why should a family who chooses to have their child educated in other than a public school not be allotted that money, by way of a voucher, or other such mechanism? If taxpayers had access to that money to spend on a school of their choosing, 1) private schools would be springing up right and left, 2) there would be an exodus of previous captive patrons, and 3) public schools would be forced to become competitive or become a holding cell for those who would not be accepted nor tolerated elsewhere.

And that’s the primordial fear among public school teachers. Their argument is that only the at-risk children, who did not have an advocate would remain, and that would be a grave disparity among the haves and have nots. My snide question in response would be, “Why would it? Wouldn’t those children have the BEST teachers and smaller class sizes?” But let’s assume that argument is valid. Wouldn’t that force our society to deal with the root issues of “at-risk.” I mean, is it possible that perhaps a mother and father in a stable home makes for a stable society? Or could it be that values instilled through faith in God make sense for a cohesive and law-abiding civilization? Might it be that fostering homosexuality and promiscuity has no place in the classroom? Maybe a place of learning does not tolerate in-class texting, profanity, and a blatant disregard and disrespect for authority.

It is my belief that focusing on school choice is critical in 2012. The tactic should not be to demonize public schools (even though that is the temptation). In the heart of this Tea Party phenomenon, people know that iron sharpens iron. Competition produces a better product. People who are allowed to take their children to the educational source of their choosing will set the direction of the marketplace, and schools will truly reflect the desires of the American people as opposed to the dictates of the liberal university system.

Consequently, I implore you to rally this cry. The time is ripe, and the opportunity should not be wasted.

Should a Deranged Person Determine Your Rights?

The tragedy in Tucson rocked the nation and, within a day, the talking heads were addressing gun control. I am so sorry that a member of Congress was shot down, as was a 9 year old innocent girl, with 6 dead and 14 wounded. Their only mistake? Participating in being a citizen - actively embracing the opportunity and right to meet with a representative on the streets of Arizona. What a travesty.

During my lifetime, I witnessed (on television) the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I was sorry it happened. I was also sorry for the killings, shootings or attempts on the lives of Robert Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, James Brady, etc.

Each and every time, I was sorry it happened. But each and every time, we recognized, as a country, the acts were carried out by a fringe element.

Now, in the wake of schizophrenic behavior conducted by a deranged individual, the talking heads are sounding the alarm concerning gun control.

On 9/11, Islamic terrorists slammed three airplanes into pre-determined targets, while a fourth catastrophe was avoided thanks to the brave actions of a few on United Flight 93. Since that time, I have not heard anyone suggesting that the public stop being allowed to fly on airlines as the vessel might be used to commit a horrific act. Nor have I heard serious consideration that perhaps Islam not be allowed in the United States, as beliefs might be used to justify acts of terrorism.

Most of the gang activity in the United States is associated with people of African American descent or those of Latino descent. To my knowledge, there is no credible movement advocating that African Americans or Latinos be regulated as a population at large because of their apparent danger to society.

Drunk drivers usually use a car. How many of you are willing to give up your car when an idiot drinks, drives, and kills innocent people. Cars are also used for car bombings. Where is the clamoring for car regulation due to these acts?

Every instance of rape I’ve heard of, involves using a certain male organ. I’m all for rapists being castrated, but I’m not in favor of giving up my own personal organs. (Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the gals on The View would advocate it.)

This is not to minimize the atrocity. People lost their parents, a parent lost their innocent 9 year old daughter, the country lost a Representative to Congress. This is horrific. So now, deal with the criminal involved in a forceful way. Forget rehabilitation. Make an example for the rest of society. Consider giving the schools which observe the developing problem the teeth to actually do something about it. Following these types of acts, everybody is wondering, “How did this guy go undetected?” I’ll bet you serious money there is a long paper trail of distressing observations from those in Jared Loughner’s path.

Crimes and criminals have been, and should be, considered as individual actions. A person, regardless of his race, creed or color, should be help responsible for his or her actions. Didn’t we learn this from our historical blight of Japanese internment?

Why is it that when some idiots in society claim the Holocaust never occurred, we don’t talk about regulating speech? Or when an obviously guilty person like OJ Simpson is acquitted, we don’t insist on eliminating double indemnity? When a crowd of gays marching across the Bay Bridge in California shuts down traffic, we’re not demanding that the right to assemble is removed? How about when it’s determined that we decide as a nation that we can’t stomach waterboarding known terrorists - are people demanding to eliminate the 8th Amendment which forbids cruel and unusual punishments. What’s that? Did you say those are not endangering society? Pretending the holocaust was a hoax, allowing murderers to go free, promoting a lifestyle that propagates AIDS/HIV, and allowing terrorists to protect their networks - well, yes, those things are definitely endangering America.

The Second Amendment was included within the Constitution immediately following the right to enjoy freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. The right of the public to maintain arms was placed before search and seizure, trial by jury, and even double indemnity. The Framers of our nation realized, from experience, that the people must have the ability to rise up against a corrupt government. If you don’t believe this, simply read the Declaration of Independence. This fact is beyond dispute.

Those who commit crimes with a gun should pay the price - dearly, and perhaps with something that many in this country oppose - the death penalty. Elements of society who take the rights and life of others away through criminal activity need to receive harsh punishment - whether shooting a member of Congress, a private individual, the owner of a business - anyone. Instead, too often, we soften the sentence to the point wherein we feel more sorry for the criminal than the victim, and the public is stuck paying the bill for grossly expensive trials, a mockery of the system, and life in maximum security. In exchange for the criminal’s activity, the millions of law abiding citizens face another onslaught of their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Do guns kill people? Absolutely. What percentage of legal citizens owning a gun have committed a crime with it? What percentage of Latinos or Blacks belong to a gang? What percentage of Muslims have flown an airplane into a building of people, or belong to a terrorist cell? I am truly sorry for the shooting which occurred in Arizona on Saturday, 1/09/2011 - carried out by a crazy man. But I am not guilty. Nor are the millions of Americans who embrace their Constitutional right to bear arms.

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...