The Checks and Balances of Power

     For over two centuries, citizens have suffered and endured the consequences of failing to obey the Divinely inspired wisdom and intention of the Constitution. From the failure of the states to abolish slavery within the twenty years after ratification, to changing the election of Senators from the state legislatures, to taxes other than direct taxes, or to Congress failing in their defined responsibility to check judicial tyranny, the evidences of the disobedience to the original intention of “the supreme law of the land” abound in the injustices wrought by the corruption of the power of government. Incorporated in the Constitution of the United States of America is a structure to check and balance political power.

     “Liberty and justice for all” were not hollow or shallow words to the generations of men and women who gave birth to America. Theirs was an understanding of an absolute of Law controlling and defining all human behavior reflected conspicuously, undeniably, and incontrovertably in the immutable “Laws of Nature”. Our system of government and our success or failure in overcoming the evil which robs us of our freedom and denies justice to all are critically dependent on protecting and defending that original intention. The very foundation of our government, our blessings and heritage from the sacrifices of those before us, and our hope for our children and their children rests on every person’s commitment and obedience to the Law on which all successful and enduring societies must be based. The solutions to the injustices arising from the cesspool of corrupt and unchecked or unbalanced power rest not in remedying the symptoms and signs of injustice, but in a every persons’ return to an obedience to the Law that transcends all human laws and understanding.

     The father of our nation, not a member of any political party, said it most clearly in his final address when ending his second term as the first president of these United States.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports . . .

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . .

. . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

     Meeting in Independence Hall, the Framers of the Constitution, dedicated themselves to establishing a supreme order of law for our government securing “certain unalienable Rights” for all. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, it was readily apparent that the consensus from these secret deliberations and study of history and political philosophy going back to 500 years before Christ motivating the signers of the Declaration was grounded in their Biblical worldview. Consistent with their intention to separate our government from the discrimination and prejudice manifest by political entities calling themselves religion or religious by various names, then as now, they made no attempt to isolate or associate their understanding of the repetitive and consistent pattern of human behavior to any religious political organization or doctrine. Truth was universal. Their order of law derived from the historically validated truth of mankind’s unchanging quest to satisfy worldly needs and desires, and to avoid pain, suffering, and all the things and situations perceived in the totality of their inclusive environments as being unpleasant. As applicable now, as over two hundred years ago, power in its political application was understood as the ability to control one’s environment using the resources of government. Their ultimate intention was to always protect the weaker from the injustices of government imposed by the more powerful.

    For many years prior to ratification, the generations of men and women who gave birth to America had been undergoing a transformation in their political thought. Having experienced tyranny and injustice in many forms and expressions, they were fearful and aware, not only of the power of government, but of those controlling it. Intending a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, they were fully aware of even the dangers inherent in democracy or a public majority. The fall of Greece, and then Rome, to the effects of popular rule were balanced with the tyranny of the British Crown and Parliament. Religious discrimination in their homelands was fresh on their minds. The Constitution is masterpiece of political design, and a model for all governments seeking to establish “liberty and justice for all” based on reality and truth, balancing the power of government.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse . . . from the public treasury . . . . from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency, back again into bondage. – Alexander Fraser Tytler

    The debate over H.R. 3313 by its opponents is a prime example and clear expression of how those hoping to overthrow our order of law must pervert and negate the Framer’s original intention to destroy our government. To understand that original intention, particularly relevant to the issue of the judicial tyranny now robbing us of our freedom, we look to the sources they referenced and studied in their deliberations. In 1745 Charles de Montesquieu, looking primarily at the laws of England in his The Spirit of Laws, profoundly influenced their concept and absolute necessity to balance the power within any government. In our republican democracy, balanced by the political structure created by the Constitution, the public majority through their legislatures are to control our government. Clearly, it is the unjust special interests in Congress, discriminating against over 70% of the American public, who depend on the unjust power of activist judges to prosecute their attack on America.

    “You seem . . . to consider the [federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps . . . [T]heir power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. (emphasis added) The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots.” – letter from Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis (September 28, 1820)

    “If [such] opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation . . . The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” – letter from Thomas Jefferson to Judge Spencer Roane (September 6, 1819)

    “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” – Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861)

    Some liberal members of the House of Representatives choose to join their fellows in the Senate who seek judicial authority to overthrow our order of law – an authority that has been knowingly denied them by the Framers and every generation of Americans. Failing to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution by instituting and calling to their own flawed procedures and rules, they attack America as surely as the al-Qaeda. By failing to confirm the President’s nominations of Federal judges loyal to the Constitution, these Senators join those in the House who would abuse their power to promote injustice and negate the original intention of the Constitution. Those politicians who steal our liberty and corrupt our society are dependent on the tolerance and apathy of a constituency succumbing to their economic bribery.

    We need only to look to their lame arguments relative to the failed Congressional responsibility to check the judicial tyranny. These excuses hollow rationalizations show either their complete ignorance of the Framer’s intention or their treasonous attempt to negate or subvert that intention, in order to promote their own unrighteous and unjust agendas, to expose their attack on America.

     Looking back, even before ratification, to the expositions in Federalist 80 and 81, the intention of the Framers is abundantly clear. The power of government was to reside solely with the people through their elected representatives. Subservient then was the executive branch, again with power granted by the public majority, to administer the legislative intention. These two then were to be intertwined and accountable to the citizens. Congress controlled the purse strings, and could override any presidential veto. The president could administer Congressional appropriations and orders, and veto acts of Congress with accountability to the citizens at the polls every four years. In extreme circumstances, Congress could even act as a tribunal to remove Federal officers, even the president. Least in power, with authority derived from Congress was the judicial branch. Until the judicial activism beginning just after the Civil War, Congress exercised its responsibility to check judicial power with the president holding appointive power. The Supreme Court itself confirmed its position under Congressional control until the legal system and its member lawyers, frequently with legislative majority, succeeded in violating Constitutional intention transferring power from Congress to their unholy and unjust fraternity of tyranny.

    Chief Justice Ellsworth of the Supreme Court, in 3U.S.(3 Dall.),321, (1796), a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, upheld a denial of Supreme Court jurisdiction, stating broadly that “the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is, likewise, qualified; inasmuch as it is given `with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make.’ Here then, is the ground, and the only ground, on which we can sustain an appeal. If Congress has provided no rule to regulate our proceedings, we cannot exercise an appellate jurisdiction; and if the rule is provided, we cannot depart from it. The question, therefore, on the constitutional point of an appellate jurisdiction, is simply, whether Congress has established any rule for regulating its exercise?”

    In a later decision at 4 U.S. 8 (1799), the Chief Justice says:”The notion has frequently been entertained, that the Federal courts derive their judicial power immediately from the constitution; but the political truth is that the disposal of the judicial power (except in a few specified instances) belongs to congress. If congress has given the power to this court, we possess it, not otherwise: and if congress has not given the power to us, or to any other court, it still remains at the legislative disposal. Besides, congress is not bound, and it would, perhaps, be inexpedient, to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, to every subject, in every form, which the constitution might warrant.”

    Many of those unfamiliar with, or choosing to ignore the facts and the truth of the original intention of the Constitution point to Marbury v. Madison in 1803, initiating the doctrine of “judicial review”, to afford some standing to their position elevating the courts to an authority sustaining their injustice and special interests. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court found that under Article III of the Constitution, a party within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction must be a State or an ambassador and that neither Marbury nor Madison was a state or an ambassador. Further, it held that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is fixed by the Constitution dismissing the case because Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority granted to the Supreme Court in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

     The author of the Marbury v. Madison decision was Chief Justice John Marshall. After he decided Marbury v. Madison, he proceeded to dismiss later cases when the Federal courts had not been granted jurisdiction by Congress to hear them under the Judiciary Act of 1789. For example, in Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 7 U.S. 268 (1806), in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789, he says:

    “This court has no jurisdiction, under the 25th section of the judiciary act of 1789, but in a case where a final judgment or decree has been rendered in the highest court of law or equity of a state, in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question, the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity, &c. or where is drawn in question, the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or exemption, specially set up or claimed by either party, under such clause of the said constitution, treaty, statute or commission. In the present case, such of the defendants as were aliens, filed a petition to remove the cause to the Federal circuit court, under the 12th section of the same act. The state court granted the prayer of the petition, and ordered the cause to be removed; the decision, therefore, was not against the privilege claimed under the statute; and, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction in the case. The writ of error must be dismissed.”

    Bringing into focus other issues where the checks and balances of government power intended by the Constitution are lost, some members of Congress have inadvertently and unintentionally declared their allegiance to the forces that seek to take our freedom and enslave us under their unjust and usurped power. Particularly prominent in this regard is the ever increasing power of the Federal government obstructing or interfering with states rights. Relative to the judicial tyranny at the Federal level, the Founders established a Federal judiciary to ensure uniformity of Federal policy. Regarding the states, they intended to allow Congress the option of creating and granting jurisdiction to Federal courts over state courts only if there was a necessity to police actions by state courts and give uniformity, fearing that, absent policing by some branch of the Federal government, state courts might undermine Federal supremacy. Unless the branches of the Federal government, those intended to hold the power authorized by the people – Congress and the executive – decide in specific and very limited instances that state courts’ actions are contrary to the national interests as a whole; there is, by definition under the Tenth Amendment, no allowance for Federal interference, deeming acceptable whatever constructions of Federal law the state courts develop.

    Even more recently, the Supreme Court has clearly rejected claims that state courts are less competent to decide Federal constitutional issues than Federal courts. In Stone v. Rice, 428 U.S. 465, 492 (1976) they said: “[W]e are unwilling to assume that there now exists a general lack of appropriate sensitivity to constitutional rights in the trial and appellate courts of the several States. State courts, like Federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold Federal law.” Justice William Brennan joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens wrote, in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), that “. . . virtually all matters that might be heard in Art. III courts could also be left by Congress to state courts.” 458 U.S. 62 (1982).

    Clearly by every historical and legal precedent, the original intention of the Constitution demands that Congress accept its responsibility to check the unjust power of judicial tyranny. H.R. 3313 has afforded them that opportunity, and now we will look to the Senate to define their allegiance and willingness to uphold their oath of office, protecting and defending the original intention of the Constitution. More important, this upcoming election offers loyal Americans a chance to accept their ultimate responsibility to check and balance the power of government. More now than ever before, we must be willing to sacrifice our selfish, humanist desires and restore the foundation of our order of law – our obedience to the Creator’s unchanging, unalterable, absolute Law for human behavior.

    “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, Second President of the United States

     “[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.” John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June, 1776

Economics and Education

    Economics is the study of the acquisition or supply, the production, distribution, and consumption of the tangible and the intangible, often using mathematical tools. With observations of fact and behavior come attempts to define the laws describing all that humanity seeks or desires in their ultimate quest to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Arising from the perceptions of that order are the theories for the management of economic systems. Education is the process whereby the entire environment of human existence enters our perception of reality. From these definitions, it is easily understood that economics and education are inseparably linked. Without adhering to reality – the truth if you will, no objective initiated by human intention can be efficiently or effectively obtained. No undertaking interacting with the natural order, rather than being simply affected by it, progresses in the most effective or efficient way when human behavior is guided by misperceptions, deceptions, or untruths. Truth binds us to absolutes of the laws of chemistry, physics, and mathematics when dealing with, or acted on or by, things controlled by the unalterable laws of nature.

 The generations of men and women who gave birth to these United States fully understood the fundamental laws regulating everything in their environment to be absolute and unalterable by any human invention or intention. Except for the freedom of mankind, where human failings contaminate that unchanging order, these colonists sought an order based on that inviolate law. They understood, in the simplest of terms, the economic success of their every endeavor was inseparably bound to an obedience to the order reflected in the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". Studying the economics of past cultures and societies 500 years before Christ, in secret, in Independence Hall, the Framers grounded their new political system taking into account the constant and repetitive, often failed, reality of human behavior as it linked freedom to the unchanging, unalterable laws of their perceptions of their environment. Education provided the link that would permit human endeavor to interact with the environment in the most economical relationship. Understanding that humanity's awareness of the constant laws of science must be coupled with human behavior obedient to the absolutes of that order, they sought to give an order to government that recognized the similarly unchanging economics of our species.


    Power of the individual must be combined with that of others to accomplish the tasks demanded by nature exceeding the capacity of one person. The economic organization instituting an order controlling political power where two or more seek to attain some common end is the essence of what the deliberations of those attending the Constitutional Convention was really about. It was the ubiquitous order of human behavior that combines in every level of government that the Framers were trying to condense into an order of law that was to stand above ordinary politics motivated by worldly interests. Economists have widely studied political power, as the Founding Fathers did, and since the reality of history was, and continues to be, the common subject of their focus, the conclusions of over two hundred years ago coincide with those of the present. Economists Kenneth Arrow and Duncan Black showed that democracy, meaning rule of the majority, would not work in benefiting the "general welfare". This famous "impossibility theorem" was expressed in Social Choice and Individual Values by Arrow in 1951. Later, another Nobel laureate in economics, James M. Buchanan, joined with economist Gordon Tullock in their The Calculus of Consent in 1962, and confirmed the Framers' intention that the Constitution must stand above even democracy for "liberty and justice for all" to endure.


    Two centuries ago, the generations of Founders sought to institute, in their political system, an order that reflected the economics of history, taking into full consideration the failures of every persons' desires and motivations. In economic terms, the "unalienable Rights . . . endowed by their Creator" were to be regulated by the economic system imparted by "supreme law of the land". Education was to provide the valid information to guide the undertakings in this government. It was an experiment incorporating the reality of human behavior into a political order seeking to provide the world with a workable economic system. Education was intended to supply the "Truth that sets men free".


     Inspection of the Framers' intention as to what they intended to be the foundation of this law standing above all human law is found in the words of Dr. Benjamin Rush. ". . . the only foundation for . . . education in a republic is religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object of all republican governments." As to their reference to religion, they came from many different denominations, with religious discrimination fresh in their minds. Using the term religion was only to affirm their Biblical worldview. It mattered not about religious political affiliation, but for these Godly men and women of faith, only the economics attending the eternal order that sustains all successful societies was entirely relevant. Whether cultures past, now obliterated by the power of the stronger, and their governments acknowledged the Source of that Law or not, the men gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, in their economic studies going back 2500 years, knew it was obedience to the Law transcending human law that determined the success or failure of governments. The public record of the expressions of the faith of those who gave birth to this "one Nation under God" is so replete with incontrovertible evidence, that there is no room for doubt as to their grounding the "supreme law of the land" on an absolute of Law. The Source of the Law for all of nature, and for the success of mankind in that natural order, created before matter, energy, time, and space could exist, was acknowledged.

"I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who …, endeavored to bring … principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform … moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state." – Jefferson's letter to Dr. Priestley, Washington, 9 April, 1803

    In a very real sense, these generations of righteous men and their families, beginning with the Great Awakening around the 1730s and 40s, and ending soon after our great Civil War in the 1870s, conceived and gave to the world its first economic system offering hope that humanity could overcome in government what we, and they, continually fail, and failed, to consistently accomplish individually. Falling to every generation is the challenge and responsibility to impart to their heirs and children the Truth recognized in America by one-third of the population over two centuries ago. Truth be it in the absolute laws of nature, or in the laws for successful human interaction that transcend the prejudice and discrimination evinced in every culture from time immemorial, was the foundation of the government conceived with Divine direction. The economics of political power describes the dissemination of the injustice that was the primary target of the Founding Fathers. Of the benefits resulting from the Great Awakening, apart from, but linked to the Revolution, was the public awareness of the importance of education. Education was critical in the Founders' eyes to sustain their intention as it was established in the Constitution.

ìOf all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports . . .

 And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . .

 . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principleî

– George Washington, Farewell Address


     "The Citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole Lords and Proprietors of a vast tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniences of life, are now, by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute Freedom and Independency; They are from this period to be considered as the Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence, for the display of human greatness and felicity; Here they are not only surrounded with every thing which can contribute to the completion of private and domestic enjoyment, but Heaven has crowned all its other blessings, by giving a fairer opportunity for political happiness than any other Nation has ever been favored with. Nothing can illustrate these observations more forcibly, than a recollection of the happy conjuncture of times and circumstances under which our Republic assumed its rank among the Nations. The foundation of our Empire was not laid in the gloomy age of Ignorance and Superstition, but at an Epocha when the rights of Mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind after social happiness have been carried to a great extent, the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages, and Legislators, through a long succession [of] years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our Forms of Government, the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on Mankind and increased the blessings of Society; At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be compleatly Free and Happy, the fa[u]lt will be entirely their own." – George Washington to John Hancock, June 11th 1783


    Education began in the family. Taught by righteous and moral parents – one man and one woman, committed, and bound by religious covenant, children were to be afforded the opportunity to continue that basic and foundational beginning outside the security and control of the family. Two centuries ago, it was understood by example; God having made a covenant with humanity through His Son, and thirteen colonies, likewise making an insoluble covenant with each other for government; that it was the responsibility of the people, as God did through Moses, the prophets, the apostles, and His Son, to educate citizens as to their relationship to that covenant agreement. The ground at the foot of the Cross was level for all standing there, and it was the task of education to maintain "liberty and justice for all". With the nuclear family as the source or supply of moral and righteous adults to be, is it any wonder that those who seek to destroy all that America was to represent to a dying world, now attack it? No economic system can function absent a primary source of supply. Not only is there a requirement for an adequate supply of raw materials, so to speak, to sustain the processes leading to distribution of the desired product for which the economic system exists, but also important is quality. In this instance, the quality of that supply is critical. Motivation, discipline, and integrity, to name but a few traits necessary to sustain and protect the intentions of the generations that gave birth to America, are instilled by educating our children only in the Truth. Socialization, as education, refines, purifies, prepares for harvest, the political power that supply successful and enduring government. The emotionally secure, mentally healthy, traditional family is the only acceptable supply. This is not about religious political affiliation, but the reality of life revealed unchangingly throughout time, and most certainly in all recorded history.

    "Central not only to education but to the very order of society, the first schools were started by the church to teach people how to read the Bible to establish the foundation of civil law and liberty. This was no more clearly stated than in the 1640s, in Massachusetts, when schools were to enable the children "to read and understand the principles of religion and the capital laws of this country". Again reiterated in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, they said: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Constitution, said "education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God." Not isolated to these few, our history abounds with and substantiates the failure of governments to sustain the Constitution and the intention of the Founding Fathers.

    Early on, ministers were the primary teachers, and other teachers were trained with a Biblical education at American colleges and universities. One hundred and six of the first 108 colleges were started by Christian religious denominations. Of the 246 colleges in America at the close of 1860, nearly half had been founded by Christian denominations or by persons who avowed a religious purpose. Seventeen of the Christian colleges were state institutions.

    As stated earlier, the Bible was a central text in American schools until recently. Primers generally contained the Lord's Prayer; Christian Catechisms were used extensively in early American education. The New England Primer from 1690 to 1800, taught the alphabet using Biblical ideas. Webster's Blue Back Speller, used by millions of Americans for over a century, @Âere the world's most successful economists.

    "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel!" – Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention, 28 June, 1787

    Education, then, is the key to protecting and defending the original intention of the Constitution. Educating the public majority alone does not suffice in our democratic republic. Because, we, the people, have given our individual political power, relative to the governments we authorize, to our representatives, we must hold each and every one of them responsible and accountable for the trust we have granted to them. Citizens have to be aware of the fact that "the supreme law of the land" stands above all of their laws, while it is bound inextricably by the absolute of Law. Every person must be taught to accept their individual responsibility to obey just law. Awareness alone is insufficient – obedience by choice is critical. Those holding political power in our government – we, the people, must also be willing to sacrifice our comfort and affluence to protect and defend the Framers' intention from all enemies "foreign and domestic" for freedom to pass to those coming after us. History reveals the economic consequences of any society failing in obedience and/or sacrifice. "The supreme law", and the Law on which it is based, is applicable and valid for all people everywhere when applied in form and principle to the varying economic circumstances. It an economic system transcending religions and cultures.

    As in any economic consideration of accountability, education must be examined to determine if the tools we authorize are in keeping with the Constitutional intention. Remembering that the Constitution must stand above normal politics, the fruit of the education of legislators, executives, and judges must be the gauge used to evaluate the economics of the education affecting the distribution of political power. Without justice for all, no economic system can succeed most effectively or efficiently.  

    Whether in scientists failing to hold to the scientific method, or in judicial activists tyrannically ignoring Constitutional intention, the economic consequences resulting from any educational deficit or deficiency are always similar. Science or the natural order is entirely unforgiving of the errors of human intention, regardless of whether or not those errors derive from misperception or misinformation – failed education. Invalid or inaccurate laws of science have no use or relevance for any engineer, chemist, physicist, mathematician, or any true scientist. Two plus two never equals anything other than four. Not only must the correct chemicals be combined to get the desired end-product of any chemical reaction, the economics of chemistry calls for the right quantities. But, even the natural order permits us to ignore fact, except that, unlike government, the results of our ignorance never alters its course. Like all human undertaking requiring interaction, efforts to access that order are contaminated by human desires and motivation. Such misguided attempts in science never lead to the exposition of truth which is the only thing which advances scientific frontiers. Simply, lies and deceptions from so-called scientists, arising from whatever motivations are economic disasters. Perhaps, as an example, the devastating result of the economically driven push for "embryonic" stem cell "research" is to divert funds from valid cancer research. There are similar examples in every area of scientific endeavor. Lies can only yield more lies, wasting time and intellectual energy. If, instead of looking for a cure for cancer, these misconceived, misdirected ruminations, concerning matters not appearing to adversely affect the human condition, divert research funds to unjust economic interests. As in all things perceived as tolerable, there is a tendency to ignore the spent energy of deceit. Another such, seemingly inconsequential, example might be in astrophysics. Despite constant protestations to the contrary, all human undertakings are always economically driven, and therefore consequential to others. Tax money or research funding is diverted by political maneuvering and deceit to support the always parasitizing "factions" spoken of by Madison in the Federalist papers over two hundred years ago. Economically, we still could learn from their insights and wisdom. Despite our ignorance by choice, science has brought many new truths, and dispelled many of the ever present failed conclusions of human misperception. Yet, still couched in the humanist desire for freedom, presumably from even the natural law itself, we see the economic result of educational breakdown.

    The "Big Bang" theory fits well into the totally unscientific presumption of evolution. Both begin out of nothing, and result in an order that exceeds human comprehension. Most important, those advancing these lies and deceptions must completely ignore the reality that, before any order, there first had to be Law giving order. Where did any law accessible to human understanding originate? In the case of astrophysics, an explanation of why scientific truth is obscured might be best understood in the light of the fact that the Big Bang proposition is the only cosmology which funding agencies are willing to financially support. Needless to say, as in any misappropriation, in scientific research or from judicial tyranny, there are always the seekers of truth who must be subverted and held incommunicado for injustice to proceed. In fact, there are significant numbers of true scientists – physicists and astronomers who reject the Bang concept preferring a Steady-state or Plasma concept.

    Eric Lerner of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, co-signed by thirty-three other scientists from ten countries, in New Scientist says, regarding the concept: "In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation". Obviously, the humanist religion's false concept of evolution exceeds this in both ignoring the scientific method, and more importantly and consequential, promoting the destruction of Constitutional intention. Interestingly, the Plasma concept, by Nobel laureate, Hannes Alfven, and the modified Steady-state one, primarily proposed by Sir Fred Hoyle, have been able to account for observations not dealt with by the Big Bang, which has absolutely no definitive physical support. Yet, these scientists have been denied funding. Hoyle is acknowledged by some as "Britain's greatest . . .astrophysicist, and the Big Bang theory's greatest adversary". Evolutionists are supported at the expense of true scientists who suggest the scientifically valid proposition of "intelligent design".

    Without any fossil evidence, or any other evidence, either in laboratory experiment, or in observations in nature, and against overwhelming mathematical evidence, the century and a half old, imaginary idea of evolution, exceeds the Big Bang in ludicrous presumption. As mentioned earlier, though, the economic consequences of these lies significantly impact us. Notably, the dream of evolution has rationalized the attack on the original intention of the Constitution. If there is no absolute of law in the natural order, negating a fundamental tenet of the Framers – "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", secular humanists robed in black on the benches where justice is meant to be obtained, can make their own unjust law. Impacting us in ways undreamed of by the Founders, our enemies must destroy the authority found in the original intention of the Constitution for their attack on America to proceed. False, misleading, deceptive education, ignoring not only the Truth, but the reality of history, is the weapon dispersed by our enemies. Worse than any biologic, chemical, or nuclear weapon, the propaganda spread by educators at every level will consume our economic system from within. Absent a supply of children educated in morality, integrity, and scientific truth holding strictly to the scientific method, the political energy of righteousness will be lost. "Liberty and justice for all" cannot exist when not sustained by "the Truth that sets men free". The Framers' intention exists only in the light of education adhering to the absolute of Law.

    Educating the public as to the Founders' intention, if but a simple majority would call their elected representatives to accountability under the "supreme law of the land", could stem the course of the economic devastation caused by judicial tyrants and legislators failing to fulfill their oath of office. Demanding that every jurist read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and Justice Joseph Story's "A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution" would give the traitors in our midst no excuse for their treason. Adequate public education, teaching only scientific truth and the reality of human behavior, must be joined by individual commitment and discipline to counter the self-centered evil that is infecting us. All people, regardless of religion, culture, geography, or any influence, cannot exist most efficiently without education in reality. Reality demands the separation of prejudice, discrimination, untruth, and injustice for any political system to function most economically. Critically dependent on education, the economic impact on the "general welfare" is determined in homes, schools, and churches.

    Republican democracy's supply of political energy is the free will of every human capable of interaction with, on, and by the environment – the "unalienable Rights". Here, a clear distinction in this economic model must be made. Every person has the right to interact with their environment. Not every person is capable of, to greater or lesser degrees, that interaction. Mind and body together, never independently or separately, must mediate that relationship. The body limits the physical energy available. Not every person can lift 100 pounds, etc. The mind controls the motivation, discipline – all human interaction with the environment. From there, individual political power is processed, and transmitted to government which again conforms it according to the laws acting upon it. Perception modified by the programming of education provides the corporate mind of the body politic with the energy flowing through the precedents of law to actuate political action. Out of the processing of political power comes the power to collectively interact with the environment. If that energy is justly applied, it is consumed by a  public always eager to partake of life's benefits and pleasures, while being protected by government from those stronger.

    The problems in this economic model can, and do, invariably arise at any stage in the process. Obviously, the most independent variable is not the capacity or amount of the supply, but the quality of the supply. Without the right ingredients, in the correct proportions going in, there is little expectation for what comes out to be what is desired. The other economic issue of supply is transportation, and the alternatives for processing. Without work or sacrifice, nothing gets to the factory. Also, the supplier has a choice as to which processing station they take it to. Once at whatever facility, the process mechanism influences the efficiency and quality of the end-product. More than just the mechanisms, there is the factor of the control of the process itself. Certainly, outdated equipment without adequate circuits to control it can't take the control program and efficiently run the process. Then, there is question of the control program itself. Misdirection, incomplete, or inaccurate programs result in defective, or sometimes hazardous products, let alone diminishing quality and sometimes stopping the entire operation. Assuming something tangible or intangible, to be, at least, partially useable, distribution choices enter in. Consideration as to where the result of the expenditures, if only of time, is to be distributed must be made. Factors such as return on investment, or, even, how a consumer may use an item can be taken into account. No manufacturer has any reluctance to selling to the highest bidder, especially if there are no adverse consequences, particularly to themselves. Political power is the finished product sought after to support the human desire for security in the uncertainty of repetitive human behavior. Only an flaming idiot would sell the al Qaeda a jet fighter. Clinton's selling China missile targeting capacity doesn't make economic sense for America. Finally, there is the consumer. Choice as to the application of their real or intellectual possessions can affect their neighbors or their environment.

    Education affects every stage in every economic process, because economics is really a study of people. Without people, the natural order proceeds, as it always does, according to laws beyond our control. Politically, communism and socialism fail because the supply of energy runs out. Dictatorships fail because the machinery doesn't work. Republican democracy conflicts with theocracies – the wires get crossed, and no matter what religious tradition or economic motivations, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are, and always will be, the "unalienable Rights" for all people everywhere. Bureaucracies unjustly consume tax dollars, because the programming is wrong. Barely over half of eligible voters voted in the last national election, and almost half of them voted for a traitor. Commitment, discipline, and sacrifice begin with the individual, and proceed to government. Socially handicapped people spread their sickness to an apathetic public. Millions of innocent people are killed for profit. Yet, in America, as in no other country in this world, the economic system for good is in place. Education in truth is the beginning of any economic system that has any chance of success. Justice would obtain, if education taught only the Truth, and people were obedient to it. The original intention of the Constitution is that liberty and justice for all be the product of this economic system. For us, in this country, the responsibility is ours alone. There is no excuse. Economically, we are the supplier, the producer, the distributor, and finally, the consumer. We even control the production, and are its directing program. More, we are the hope for the politically indigent and suffering everywhere. Only as long as education directs the production of morality, integrity, and righteousness – words used often, with meaning and purpose, by those conceiving "one Nation under God, with liberty and justice for all", can our government succeed.

    Exposed by the Light of Truth, beginning in the early to mid 1700s, a plan to free humanity from the shackles of economic tyranny unfolded. Hidden and covered by the dust of the unjust quest for power and property, history revealed an order that arose from fertile soil of a free people in a new land. For them, Truth outlined an order that had been buried in the darkness and mire of lies, deceit, sin, and crime, enabled by corrupt political power. Here, across a sea from the prejudice and discrimination suffered by many of them, they envisioned political energy molded and formed in a, heretofore, untried and untested economic system. Seeking to establish "liberty, and justice for all", these men and women understood that all government depends on those holding the reins of political power. In these newly united states, it was intended that education in fact and truth would provide the necessary foundation required for this experiment in freedom and justice.

    The first step in recovering our liberty and restoring justice is to take back the education system, and then demand that our representatives, in every type and level of government, protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution for the United States of America. Failing to uphold their oath or commission of office, they must be removed. In the eyes of those over two hundred years ago, there is an absolute of Law without which nothing works. This is not a question of religion. It is a question of reality!

The Way to the Clearing

    Depredations such as these do not simply go away. About this, history is unambiguous. They build upon their own force, they attract opportunistic adherents, they destroy opposition. Therefore, it is essential that they are faced early and directly. It is essential that they are identified for what they are, in onslaughts that match them in assertiveness, and that whoever does this does so unflinchingly. The real power in politics is when politics are transcended, which is not difficult. It is necessary only to know and defend simple truths, and to hold to stated positions as if you believe in them, because, in fact, you do.    Who the victor will be and by what narrow margin or technicality is immaterial to the fact that the horrid election of 2000 was created by the over-calculation and dissembling of both parties, which directed their gargantuan efforts not to clarify their positions but to obscure them. Had they argued forthrightly and drawn the clear lines the electorate deserves, the break almost

certainly would have been less ambiguous. With a more truthful politics, issues would be settled, things would get done, politics would actually recede. It is foolish to believe that because half the people favor blue and half yellow, what the country really wants is green. If a nation could put itself on the right path merely by splitting differences, history would be rather less sharp. You cannot properly address the questions of what constitutes an adequate national defense, of collective versus individual rights, of abortion, capital punishment, the redistribution of wealth, the role and effect of government, and the meaning of the Constitution unless you debate them with all the force of argument you can bring to bear for the purpose of determining the truth of contending propositions. Is it not astounding that this approach is associated with fanaticism and suicide, when in fact it is the sine qua non of survival in the long term?

    Its exemplar is not a Pat Buchanan, who feeds on the absolutism of his positions more than on their content, and has yet to adjust to the Second World War. But nor is it a Trent Lott, who dwells behind the baseboards, ears cocked and fingers to the wind, surrounded by squadrons of ever-trembling mice.

    With what instrument, then, does one calibrate what needs to be done and the means to do it? What magic allows a statesman to thread the needle without touching the sides, to choose the right rather than the easy course, and to keep politics stable and just? Churchill knew, as did Lincoln, Washington, and even statesman who, while practicing politics, transcended it. They lived by it. They saw their long-lasting power swell with it. It lay at the heart of their achievements, their beliefs, and their lives. It is what keeps them before our eyes even now It is the truth.

    Churchill's magisterial strength was not born of ideology: he crossed the aisle twice and was notably inconsistent in the little matters that bind little minds. It did not derive from language itself. No matter how finely language may he constructed, divorced from truth it is repellent. And it did not derive from the calculus of power: he was at his best when he seemed God-forsaken, when, as if by divine allowance, there appeared before him an ember of truth that then would illuminate his way with the heat and light of a Glasgow steel furnace. The heart of what a statesman says is in simple words that draw their force from the compelling circumstance that they are true, that, in the hurricane of words, they are the eye.

    The way out of the wilderness is the truth: recognizing it, stating it, defending it, living by it. Although you cannot know the truth absolutely, you can follow it quite easily. In everything we do, individually or collectively, it is God's imprimatur, and to continue to believe that we can conduct our affairs without it would he the greatest and most consequential mistake in the history of this nation. Better defeat with the truth in sight than a thousand hollow victories without it. Precisely that conviction is what allowed Winston Churchill his extraordinary relation to victory. And it is this paradox that, exiting this period of  forgetfulness, we would do well to remember.

from Imprimis, Volume 30, Number 1, a monthly publication of Hillsdale College, January 2001

March 9, 2001    
¡ver the horizon, waiting to launch their attack on America are those who would suggest that there is no absolute of law. By trying to prevent the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, sustained by a corrupted and bankrupt judiciary, the traitors would replace truth with the lies of their own false religion. Allowing discrimination in affirmative action; permitting murder and genocide here and abroad; stealing from those who work to support themselves and their families to give to those unwilling to work; attempting to prevent the innocent from protecting themselves against those bent on unlawfully and unjustly taking their possessions, or worse their very lives;  ignoring the sanctity of life itself for social or political expediency; destroying the training ground for righteousness, morality, virtue, and integrity in the next generation ñ the nuclear, traditional family, in order to tolerate a sick minority contaminating our children; and the list seems almost unending, are all a product of our apathy and tolerance of injustice. Is there any question that America is under attack? Back when tea taxed at 1/8 of a cent was dumped into Boston harbor, or when brother fought against brother to sustain an economy of injustice, or on September 11, our enemies were not concealed in the black robes found in the courtrooms in this land between the shining seas.

Our call is for scientists, lawyers, historians, all who communicate truth and justice to a world with few champions and heroes, to step forward and let their voice be heard. At the least, an overwhelming majority of citizens willing to forego their affluence, and overcome their apathy and indifference, must demand that their legislators and Congressmen uphold and defend the intention of the Founding Fathers. The attack on the absolute of law in the form of preventing the public display of the Ten Commandments, violating the 1st Amendment as contained in the ìBill of Rightsî, is but another political subterfuge attacking the ìsupreme law of landî under the color of the very absolute law they wish to destroy. The entire legislative history of  the 1st Amendment, and all of the writings of the framers, when viewed and taken in context makes it abundantly clear that the intention of the framers was to prevent any political religious organization from interfering with or discriminating in the affairs of the state. They depended on and acknowledged the foundational role of the Christian catholic Church in sustaining the Constitutional intention. In their plan for government there was no separation of Church and state. The Church, as the people adhering to the immutable Law of Natureís God gave power and authority to the state. Denominations, sects, or other religious political groups as the church (small c) were to be entirely separated from government. Is the funding, from the public treasury, of the activities of the religion of humanism, not really what those gathered in Constitution Hall, began their meetings with prayer, and paid chaplains from the treasury, were really prohibiting? Can anyone deny that the Ten Commandments, in its many forms, and under many names, consistent with justice, are the cornerstone of law in every enduring society? History is fact and truth; otherwise it would not be history. As truth, it cannot be ignored for long, and have any society survive.

May God continue to bless America, despite our constant failure to obey His absolute of Law!

Blinded By Lies

    President Clinton was able to ride out his impeachment not merely because he has the conscience of a slot machine, but because he and his partisans managed to convince the nation that the matter at issue was not truth but power.Blinded By Lies

 Virtually all his arguments were founded upon lies. It was a lie that he did not perjure himself. It was a lie that lie did not conceal evidence. It was a lie that he did not conspire to intimidate witnesses. It was a lie that all these things were personal mistakes. It was a lie that the assemblage of raw FBI files on 900 Republicans was not for the purposes of blackmail. It was a lie that these files came to the White House by mistake. It was a lie that Mrs. Clinton did not benefit from guaranteed transactions in commodities trading. It was a lie that this was not a bribe. It was a lie that the president did not receive millions of campaign dollars front China. It was a lie that lie did not personally intervene to aid the transfer to China of military technology that China intends for potential use against the United States. It was a lie that these two actions were unconnected. It was a lie that the grounds for impeachment were not mystifyingly narrow. It was a lie that the Senate could not try on political rather than legal grounds. There were so many lies that they were like sand in a sandstorm. They got into everything. You could not see the ground in front of you for all the lies that swirled in the air like brown dust.

    The President was able to compel these lies because, finally, the Republican Party was unwilling and unable to go into battle to defend American exceptionalism, to defend the idea that our politics depend upon self-evident truth, as once it had gone into battle at Antietam, Chancellorsville, Petersburg, and other places, where hundreds of thousands of men died in defense of principles that the modern Republican Party fails to defend because its leaders are interested not in truth but in power.

    Soldiers and sailors, young eighteen-year-olds, are prepared to lay down their lives in defense of the Constitution. And for little more consideration than the privilege of doing so, they often do. Ending root and branch, families give of their children, of their sons and may God forgive the United States – of their daughters, for this idea. They have done so since the beginning and they do so even unto this day. What must they think of those who send young soldiers into battle, who take the same oath and serve the same Constitution, but who flinch and cower not at the prospect of giving up their lives but of losing an election?

    The case that the impeachment was inconsequential, the work of hotheads without the capacity for nuance or moderation, rested upon the assurance that the issues of impeachment were inconsequential, or, if consequential, anomalous. Supposedly, there was no logic to such things as the impeachment sought to check, and there would be no extension of them. They would go away. This view received its ultimate endowment when the Republican nominee for president said, only four months ago: "I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years."

    It seems, however, that he did have a stake. What the impeachment sought to check did not go away. It came back in the person of a horrible, fleshy, bovine creature in whose thick and sweaty hands the entire state of Florida became the victim of date rape. That which remains unsettled and unattended is usually destined to multiply. The forces that, during the impeachment, constituted the unspeakable defending the indefensible, rushed south in response to an election that had gone against them by only a few votes and that, drawing upon the Democratic patriarchs (Curley, Tweed, Pendergast, Long, and Daley), they were confident they could overturn by sheer force of manipulation.

    In subjecting the established standards for the acceptance of ballots to recurrent free falls, they hoped via numbing recounts in predominantly Democratic counties to produce the Democratic votes required to tip the balance. They would allow themselves the Delphic privilege of divining the intent of unknown voters who had cast spoiled ballots; they would hold absentee and military votes to a strict standard while searching for indented Gore chads as desperately as cosmonauts searching for bottles of oxygen after punching a hole in Mir; they would count as many times and take as much time as necessary to achieve the outcome they sought; after their statisticians informed them that the Vice-President would not win based only on the many rule changes to that point, they would change the rules yet again to include the infamous dimpled chads; their slogan, "All votes should count," would apply only to spoiled ballots in their target counties, ignoring spoiled ballots everywhere else; they would hurl upon the state of Florida a writhing mass of amoral lawyers and semi-human political operatives.

    And after all this, unbelievably, they would accuse their opponents of trying to steal the election. They do not know that what they have done is wrong. They believe they have been commendably exercising power in search of a triumph of the will. How strong they are, how ruthless, how clever. No matter that what they seek is a triumph over truth, reason, established procedure, the Constitution, and the climate of decency that has sustained this country since its beginnings.

The Way Out of the Wilderness

    Mr. Helprin (Novelist and Contributing Editor, The Wall Street Journal)  delivered the following speech at the first annual Hillsdale College Churchill Dinner, held on Tuesday December 5, 2000, at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Virginia. I believe that we are in the wilderness, that we are in the wilderness because of too many lies told and too many lies believed, and that, if left unchecked, this habit of untruth will destroy us.

I was born in 1947, and in my lifetime have seen three American political crises. Of these, two have come in the last two years. Whereas European political crises are almost always about power, American political crises are almost always about truth, which is why Europeans almost always mistranslate and misapprehend us. It is also why Winston Churchill, wholly British and half American, was able to save the West. As a European he understood power, but as an American he brought into history's consummate struggle for power the idea of truth as the consummate weapon. In those great moments when the world depended on his every word, it underlay every word he spoke. It was the foundation of the nearly metaphysical strategy into which he marshaled the allies to destroy the enemies that had nearly overwhelmed them. It enabled him to see when others could not, to speak when others would not, and to record his times with majesty, elevation, and wit.

It is almost an axiom of the Left that the wound that cleaved America from Europe and in which we found our special nature will heal, and that our political culture will come to tolerate the corruption it was born to put to an end: in short, that, embarrassed by our exceptionalism, we will race to abandon it. Unfortunately, this is true, it is happening on the instant, and it is the source of the crises in our political life that, mistakenly and superficially, we perceive and address as contests of power. But they are not contests of power, they are arguments about truth.

Republic v. Democracy

We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us byrnour Founders was a republic, not a democracy.

We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy. 1 Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.2 James Madison

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. 3 John Adams

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. 4 The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty. 5 Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment

We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere teminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt. 6 Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. 7 John Quincy Adams

A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils. 8 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. 9 Noah Webster

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subjet to caprice and the madness of popular rage. 10 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion. 11 Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text

Many Americans today seem to be unable to define the difference between the two, but there is a difference, a big difference. That difference rests in the source of authority.

A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a "mobocracy" 12); a republic is rule by law. If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster:

[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion. 13

The transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic. Consider the stability this provides: in our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. however, in a democracy, if majority of the people decide that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.

America's immutable principles of right and wrong were not based on the rapidly fluctuating feelings and emotions of the people but rather on what Montesquieu identified as the "principles that do not change." 14 Benjamin Rush similarly observed:

[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community. 15

In the American republic, the "principles which did not change" and which were "certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community" were the principles of Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For example, Blackstone's Commentaries explained:

To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . . But, with regard to matters that are . . . not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the . . . legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose. 16

The Founders echoed that theme:

All [laws], however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. . . . But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. . . . Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. 17 James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice

[T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. 18 Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution

[T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . .

[This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control. 19 Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution

The Founders understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the republic and that the republic would be destroyed if the people's knowledge of those values should ever be lost.

A republic is the highest form of government devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human care and maintenance. If neglected, it can deteriorate into a variety of lesser forms, including a democracy (a government run by a small council or a group of elite individuals): or dictatorship (a government run by a single individual). As John Adams explained:

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few. 20

Understanding the foundation of the American republic is a vital key toward protecting it.


1. An example of this is demonstrated in the anecdote where, having concluded their work on the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin walked outside and seated himself on a public bench. A woman approached him and inquired, "Well, Dr. Franklin, what have you done for us?" Franklin quickly responded, "My dear lady, we have given to you a republic – if you can keep it." Taken from "America's Bill of Rights at 200 Years," by former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, printed in Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. XXI, No. 3, Summer 1991, p. 457. This anecdote appears in numerous other works as well.

2. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, The Federalist on the New Constitution (Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner, 1818), p. 53, #10, James Madison.

3. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), Vol. VI, p. 484, to John Taylor on April 15, 1814.

4. Fisher Ames, Works of Fisher Ames (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809), p. 24, Speech on Biennial Elections, delivered January, 1788.

5. Ames, Works, p. 384, "The Dangers of American Liberty," February 1805.

6. Gouverneur Morris, An Oration Delivered on Wednesday, June 29, 1814, at the Request of a Number of Citizens of New-York, in Celebration of the Recent Deliverance of Europe from the Yoke of Military Despotism (New York: Van Winkle and Wiley, 1814), pp. 10, 22.

7. John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution. A Discourse Delivered at the Request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York on Tuesday, the 30th of April 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789 (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839), p. 53.

8. Benjamin Rush, The Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press for the American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 523, to John Adams on July 21, 1789.

9. Noah Webster, The American Spelling Book: Containing an Easy Standard of Pronunciation: Being the First Part of a Grammatical Institute of the English Language, To Which is Added, an Appendix, Containing a Moral Catechism and a Federal Catechism (Boston: Isaiah Thomas and Ebenezer T. Andrews, 1801), pp. 103-104.

10. John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. VII, p. 101, Lecture 12 on Civil Society.

11. Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1795), Vol. I, p. 19.

12. See, for example, Benjamin Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p. 498, to John Adams on January 22, 1789.

13. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.

14. George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1859), Vol. V, p. 24. See Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. I, pp. 17-23, and ad passim.

15. Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p. 454, to David Ramsay, March or April 1788.

16. Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42-43.

17. James Wilson, The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 103-105, "Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation."

18. Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 87, February 23, 1775, quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p. 41.

19. Rufus King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1900), Vol. VI, p. 276, to C. Gore on February 17, 1820.

20. John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, editor (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. I, p. 83, from "An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, with the Author's Comment in 1807," written on August 29, 1763, but first published by John Adams in 1807. this article is available on the Wallbuilders website at URL:

We Are At War

These messages call all Americans loyal to the original intention of the Constitution to assume their responsibility to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". In the book, The Attack on America, the statement is clear that this is a war of ideologies. Changing the minds of those in control of governments alters the source of power of any successful and enduring government. When Islamic theocracies or other governments controlled by those whose ideologies are based on Islam or other religions not acknowledging the reality of human behavior, upon which the Constitution is based, focus their attack on truth and reality, they are attacking the Constitution. Coupling a political worldview embracing lies and deceptions with the militancy of Islam presents an enemy capable of taking down the twin towers, and one awaiting any opportunity to do something equally evil and horrendous anytime and anywhere they will be given the chance. Seeing the "Mickey Mouse" character indoctrinating their children with hate and injustice, there is no question our Moslem enemies are preparing their armies against us.

We Are At War
    We have repeatedly published articles related to the on-going attack on America. These messages call all Americans loyal to the original intention of the Constitution to assume their responsibility to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". In the book, The Attack on America, the statement is clear that this is a war of ideologies. Changing the minds of those in control of governments alters the source of power of any successful and enduring government. When Islamic theocracies or other governments controlled by those whose ideologies are based on Islam or other religions not acknowledging the reality of human behavior, upon which the Constitution is based, focus their attack on truth and reality, they are attacking the Constitution. Coupling a political worldview embracing lies and deceptions with the militancy of Islam presents an enemy capable of taking down the twin towers, and one awaiting any opportunity to do something equally evil and horrendous anytime and anywhere they will be given the chance. Seeing the "Mickey Mouse" character indoctrinating their children with hate and injustice, there is no question our Moslem enemies are preparing their armies against us.
    Why is it that our enemies, among those who we elect to represent us in this republic, are able to support those who have a loyalty to any religion – Islam, humanism, liberalism, socialism, whatever – bent on destroying liberty and justice for all? Simply, the public doesn't want to confront the reality that freedom is never free. There have always been, and always will be, those who will violate the foundation of the "supreme law of the land". Only when these traitors in our midst are able, violating the scientific method and preaching revisionist history, to indoctrinate the minds of the majority of citizens, now adhering to an absolute of Law that will never change, to believe their lies and deceptions, will they be successful in destroying America.
    As this Memorial Day approaches we want repeat the words from November 19, 1863 of the "redeemer" President.
"We here [must] highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this Nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." – Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address (edited [punctuation] by the CftC)
    Our enemies are not only the judicial activists; the liberal politicians; humanist educators; 47 percent of American Muslims who consider themselves Muslim first, American second; the liberal media; Hollywood brain-dead, the nearly one in four American Muslims who endorse suicide bombings; or just the 73% in the Middle East who support suicide bombings. Our enemies are also any who would have us, for any reason or motivation, not protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution.
May America bless God!
P.S. From among the thousands who read our articles, we have received a few (>3) comments from some who object to, what they refer to as, "name calling". It is not our intention to resort to invalidate debate procedures, but rather to succinctly identify the subject of our often lengthy articles. As a case in point, take the word enemies above. Webster defines enemy as "1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent; 2 : something harmful or deadly; 3 a : a military adversary b : a hostile unit or force." For the sake of brevity: "If the shoe fits wear it!" or "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"


Songs of Liberty and Justice

Songs of Liberty and Justice©
    This Fourth of July is special in our history. We are at war against an enemy seeking not only our abundance, but our very freedom. In their evil progression, justice for all will be obliterated – justice will be defined by the unjust. To succeed, those attacking what is celebrated on this anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, whether enslaving people here between these shining seas or around the world, must change the hearts and minds of citizens whose heritage is one of courage and sacrifice for the sake of goodness and righteousness. Ignoring the truth and reality of the past, those seeking to destroy the America portrayed in the lyrics of  America the Beautiful, The Star-Spangled Banner, and The Battle Hymn of the Republic call us to ignore the evils and tyranny of their humanist agendas manifest in the onslaught of liberalism in our courts and legislatures, and the ongoing atrocities of terrorism imparted by Islamic jihadists.
Songs of Liberty and Justice©
    This Fourth of July is special in our history. We are at war against an enemy seeking not only our abundance, but our very freedom. In their evil progression, justice for all will be obliterated – justice will be defined by the unjust. To succeed, those attacking what is celebrated on this anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, whether enslaving people here between these shining seas or around the world, must change the hearts and minds of citizens whose heritage is one of courage and sacrifice for the sake of goodness and righteousness. Ignoring the truth and reality of the past, those seeking to destroy the America portrayed in the lyrics of the three songs below call us to ignore the evils and tyranny of their humanist agendas manifest in the onslaught of liberalism in our courts and legislatures, and the ongoing atrocities of terrorism imparted by Islamic jihadists. Rather than listening to the lies and deceptions of the traitors in our midst, or to the propaganda of those who show no reluctance to continue the horror visited on the innocent on 11 September, 2001, loyal Americans across this land of the free and the home of the brave should lift their voices signing these three songs as we rise, one Nation under God, to confront the evil forces seeking to destroy what is represented in these hymns proclaiming liberty and justice for all.
    We are in an ideological war for the hearts and minds of people everywhere. "America is under attack not because of anything we have done or not done", but because we represent truth, liberty, and justice for all. In the words of “America the Beautiful”, we represent "liberty in law" – not the law of any false religion, not the laws concocted by humanists' desires, and certainly not the laws of politicians seeking to substitute their tyranny for the original intention of the Constitution. The Law spoken of in these three anthems of liberty and justice is the Law relied on in 1776 as one-third of the colonists took on the mightiest army and navy of their time with no army, no navy, and no unified military organization. "Relying on [the Power and provision of] divine Providence", "let us die to make men free".
    After the war of 1812, “The Star-Spangled Banner” was frequently sung as one of America's favorite patriotic songs. During our great Civil War, it, along with "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", was an especially favored military hymn. From the latter, we can grasp at the feelings and emotions of that terrible war that forever changed this land. "The Attack on America" calls the war to end slavery the turning point in American history, where supported by the scientifically invalid concept of evolution, humanism, emboldened by an errant judiciary, began its "corrosion and erosion" of the original intention of the Constitution. Now, facing the same enemies, cloaked in the differing garments of prejudice, rationalism, lies, and deceit, we can sing these hymns, and their words can inspire and their music empower.
    Over a century ago, before mass communications, Americans expressed their patriotism in music, because music enabled words and feelings to be easily remembered and disseminated. We can now look at the words to understand the times past, and share the emotions of these true patriots. Ideals and values, represented in the lyrics, energized by the music, gave meaning and purpose to America's pain and suffering.
    Later, as America was recovering from the devastation of our Civil War, which often times saw brother pitted against brother, Katharine Lee Bates wrote the uplifting, reconciling lyrics for “America the Beautiful” as a poem in 1893. First published in 1895, she wrote a second version in 1904, and a final version in 1913. Over the years, Bates's words have been sung to many scores, but, until the time of her death on March 28, 1929, Miss Bates never said which music she preferred to be linked to her words. Now, our country’s “unofficial” national anthem is sung to the tune of Samuel Ward’s Materna.
    "America! America! God shed his grace on thee."
America the Beautiful
O beautiful for spacious skies
For amber waves of grain
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain
America! America
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea
O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness
America! America
God mend thine every flaw
Confirm thy soul in self-control
Thy liberty in law
O beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife
Who more than self the country loved
And mercy more than life
America! America
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears
America! America
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea
O beautiful for halcyon skies
For amber waves of grain
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain
America! America
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea
O beautiful for pilgrims feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness
America America
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!
O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man's avail
Men lavished precious life
America! America
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee
Lyrics: Katharine Lee Bates, 1913 Final Version
Music: Samuel Ward, 1882

The Star-Spangled Banner
O say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watch'd were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
'Tis the star-spangled banner – O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – "In God is our trust,"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Lyrics: Francis Scott Key
Music: "To Anacreon in Heaven" – 18th century British gentlemen's "constitutional song"
The Battle Hymn of the Republic
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps;
They have builded him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read his righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before his judgment-seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Lyrics: Julia Ward Howe
Music: tune and early lyrics written by William Steffe about 1856 as a Methodist Camp Meeting song, popular around Charleston, South Carolina prior to the Civil War