Thursday, December 22, 2011

Letter to the editor Beacon of hope of nation of ironies

This article took some time to write due to the contraversial nature of it, fact I am running for the state legislature and wasn't sure if people would understand the intent of it. After much prayer and thought, I decided to write the article because I believe that people still need to become educated as quickly as posible before all chances of restoration are gone.

 This is my attempt to reach out to just one, to educate just one or to let just one know I understand what it takes, to stand when no one else will , that I am not just another politician but one that understands his oath that will do what needs to be done without coersive financing in support of a collective entity to diminish  the value and power of one individual, if we are all create equal and our rule of law guarantees this, then diminishing the power of one in support of the many would be a derelection of my oath.

The letter to the editor is below:

Would I get your attention if I suggested the abolition of the US constitution while running for the Idaho state legislature? Would reading this article ruin the chance to win the election, will you read it in its entirety?

Why adhere to history we abandoned decades ago and perform traditions that few even know the meaning and purpose?

We are a new AmeriKa, not the beacon of hope to all nations, but now a nation of ironies and contradictions, Are we one nation under God or one nation on dope?

Is our country today what our Founding fathers wanted?

Our Founding Fathers believed power was inherent in the people that established government to protect our God given inalienable rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY, that the constitution was written to limit government and the Bill of Rights were Rights that no branch of government could interpret or dictate.

Today, does government have the power over the people? Is the supreme court to be the final arbiter of man’s rights abandoning the checks and balances of the other two?

Instead of one tyrant king of England, three tyrant kings instead where the power remains in all three branches instead of in the people?

Instead of the peoples creation of government to protect life, we fund the destruction of it instead? Instead of government protecting our rights, they interpret and restrict our rights now with pre-emptive law all “in the name of safety?” Does government now destroy our economy by sending jobs overseas due to the environmental regulations and taxes? Does government to remove us from our homes, for failure or inability to pay taxes because we can’t find jobs in an economy that we have created through our own ignorance and apathy?

We deny our foundations in the name of tolerance, We pledge allegiance and don’t know why, We speak of freedom and trade it for security, we say we love our children and kill them as a choice, teach them they weren’t created or special and significant but a random chemical accident and they can, in fact, spend their way to prosperity, we lock them down in school and put them under surveillance stating it’s for their protection, when essentially they are jailed instead? If this is their future in progress what message does that send to our children, and we the parents allow this to happen?

We say we love our military but allow the government to label them as domestic terrorists, do we honor the sacrifices for freedom when we trade them for security? We elect our officials today not on their ability and knowledge or our knowledge of them but on outward appearance and are more comfortable words like security than we are of freedom. Will this article resonate with readers enough to believe the  properly understood constitution is not the problem, it is the ignorance of it?

The power is in inherent in the people and is why I am running for legislature.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Is the war on terror a fraud?

Sometimes, you find artcles that just say almost everything that you think but never thought to say it like it like you found it was written. Fortunately, this article, written by Coach as a good friend of mine so as I post it to spread his name and his great article, I also post it because it fits into the problems I believe we face as a nation  today. Nice job, Coach!


By Coach Dave Daubenmire
December 8, 2011 www.
At the risk of being labeled a “Truther”, or a “Birther” or a “Conspiracy Theorist” I thought I would take the opportunity to share with you some observations that I have recently made.
I suppose I find myself in a few head-butting incidents every now and then because I don’t just take things at face value. Although I don’t know when it happened I have become one of those who questions almost everything I hear, especially when it comes from the media.
Having spent the past decade or so dancing in and out of the public eye I have become adept at reading the bias in the media. Usually, when I get a call from one of them it is because they are searching for someone to articulate a position on a particular issue and they know that they can count on me to give them a good sound-bite.

They are not on my side. I came to understand that years ago, but in their attempts to be “fair and balanced” they call on me to give the “Right-Wing-Wacko” position that their journalistic fairness requires them to display. Rarely do I get the opportunity to have a serious discussion with a qualified, veteran reporter. They are not really interested in what I have to say.

Like so much in the media, the leg-work is done by some recently-graduated-from-journalism-school stringer who has been assigned the weekly “moral issue” for publication. Invariably, whatever this wet-behind-the-ears reporter puts in the article will be quoted over and over again as the story circulates through shared media-sources and the blogosphere. Once printed, the statement can never be clarified nor retracted. Often, the statement is out-of-context and designed to make me look like the wacko the unbiased reporter believes me to be.

But, of course, there is no bias. They are merely repeating the “facts.”
I would hope that you can tell from my writings that I am a deep-thinking man. I read and analyze volumes of materials weekly. I often receive information from readers who want to make me aware of a particular issue…I read everything, but don’t believe everything I read. Much of what I know, and believe, I never share with others.

That’s what “objective” columnists do, eh?
Let me state up front that I am non-violent but understand others are violent, so I own guns. I love my country but do not trust the government. I respect our soldiers but do not support the wars. I am a proud Christian but ashamed of what passes as Christianity. I am a life-long educator but think public education is responsible for the condition of this country. I know it is safest to keep my mouth shut, but cowardly to do so.

So at the risk of alerting the TSA, the FBI, the IRS, Homeland Security, and the Muslim Brotherhood I want to state a conclusion that I have drawn.
The War on Terror is a fraud.

I don’t want to get into 9-1-1 theories, Dick Cheney, and the free-fall exhibited by the 3 buildings in New York. That research is for those far more qualified than me. But observation of where we are in 2011 makes me tilt my head sideways as I look at what has happened to freedom in America.

Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said, "He who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

I believe the threat of Islamic terror is real and that national security is the number one job of our government, but I’ll be damned if I want to sacrifice my freedom because of what some former cave-dwelling, camel-riding recent-arrival-in-the-21st-century-Muslim might do. I fail to see how fighting in Afghanistan makes me safer in the cornfields of Ohio.

This all came home to me as I was standing in line at the airport last week…watching the “cattle-low” as they bowed to the commands of the TSA agent who just last week was an assistant manger at Pizza Hut. “Take off your shoes…no liquids in the carry on…spread your legs and put your hands behind your head…wait for permission before moving forward.” As I stood there waiting my turn to have my rights violated I was hit with an epiphany.

“What a joke,” I thought to myself. “If a terrorist wanted to kill a bunch of people, he could easily blow up a bunch of folks while he waited in line to go through the scanner. The scanner is supposed to insure that there are no bombs that make it onto the airplane, but do nothing to protect those who are waiting in line to be scanned.” On this particular early-morning flight out of Columbus there must have been 300 people waiting in line to go through security. What a terrorism opportunity!
What would TSA and Homeland Security do if a bomb was detonated by someone waiting in line? What means of security currently prohibits this from happening? Why haven’t the “terrorists” thought of this? (I am sure they have.)
What if they simultaneously did it in six airport security-lines around America? Hasn’t the “government” considered that possibility? What are they doing to provide security as we go through security? Do we actually believe that the “terrorists” have to get on a plane too kill innocent Americans?
All of the security is designed to make the cattle feel that government is protecting us.
And what about football stadiums? You mean no ‘terrorist” has thought about blowing himself up in the middle of Section B of the Super Dome during the National Anthem? What about your local high school? What about simultaneous, coordinated attacks on six schools around the nation? If their purpose was to spread death and terror can you think of anything more terrifying to the average American parent? How would TSA and Homeland Security respond to that?
And didn’t the “terrorists” miss a great opportunity for mayhem on Black Friday? Can you image the carnage that would be left as result of some suicide-bomber hitting the target by lighting up like a Christmas tree those lined up outside of the local Target Store?
How about an IED inside our churches? If it is Christianity that they hate so badly why haven’t the ‘terrorists” planned some mega –explosions at a select group of mega-churches across the country?
Just look around. Do we really think that if those who masterminded the 9-1-1 attacks were smart enough to pull it off aren’t they wise inventive enough to see all of the vulnerable targets that you and I can see? Are we really safe because of wire-taps, airport strip-searches, and the supposed-Herculean efforts of the Department of Homeland Insecurity?
When will we awaken to the fact that those who make a living off of the “war on terror” are depending on keeping us terrified?
NOTE TO ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: I am not a terrorist, have no interest in killing innocent Americans, and am not interested in an armed conflict with the government. But the fact remains, I am more concerned about a black government vehicle pulling up in front of my house in the middle of the night than I am of Abdullah Appleseed blowing up a plane that I am on.
Billions of dollars are being spent at the airports to protect us from bombers in burkas, while much easier, softer, more devastating targets remain wide open to a lethal assault.
Funny isn’t it. The Department of Homeland Security has made no secret of the fact that they consider God-fearing men like me to be a greater threat to America than some terrorist named Obama Bin Lying and his henchmen.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Methinks something is amiss. Could it be possible that a “domestic terrorist attack” like the one’s I have just described could be exactly what the doctor ordered? Can you picture a scenario where the perpetrator is discovered to be an angry, right-wing, anti-government extremist…even though his remains no longer remain to be investigated or questioned?
Can’t you imagine the chaos and need for a government crackdown if one of these soft-targets is suddenly hit? Do you find it hard to believe that right-wing Christian-profiling by the Homeland 
Security would suddenly be in vogue?
…and just who are all of those FEMA camps for?
I hate to think like this. I wish I wasn’t so cynical, but something doesn’t seem right. Terrorism can not destroy America.
But terror can. Am I the only one suspicious of what I see?
Click Here for an audio version of this commentary.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The public school, who is the parent?

  I love it when my children are happy. When they are happy I am happy unless what they are happy about violates the liberty and freedom of my family and my children, at which point it is no longer a game and nees to be addressed quickly!

We have been avid supporters of our children's sports- football, basketball, track. We have paid fees, endured many hosptal trips and even the sometimes overreach in authority of various school administrators just so our children could enjoy the game. Weve payed hundreds in entry fees to each game as most do but as the individual, state and national wealth began to decrease, it was time to start asking questions about where the money was going and for each question I asked I was horified at not only the fiscal irresponsibility but the neglect for the rights of the people that these elected officials swore an oath to protect.

Before I begin, I would like to state that the subject matter in these posts could be considered offensive but shouldn't be so because the people have been led to believe something today that was never intended in the original establishmant of this country. It is not necessarily the fault of the parent or the teachers but of a planned agenda to destroy the roots of this great nation and the legacy that that has been bestowed upon us, quite simply, weve been duped and dumbed down  to buy a lie! Many of these people are good people, nice people and well intentioned and are my friends. It is not my intention to disrespect them but to reveal a serious problem! The biggest problem isnt necessarily that these issuesexists but getting people to see them, most people see nothing wrong!

Today, comes not as a new issue but a continuation of the multitude that I have mentioned in previous posts that so many people are either oblivious to, don't care or understand- In many cases, they act as if they have no desire to understand and it truly breaks my heart. As I was told tonight:

"You are all alone over there, with so few that agree with you and we are all together over here" or  "Why don't you leave us alone, we are happy here the way things are, why don't you move and take that constituion stuff with you or just move out of town!"

Also, on record, I have a state legislator that stated the purpose of the school was to separate the parent from the child, so take this into consideration when reading the remainder of the post.

The issue, you ask? Public school mandated drug testing! Yep, "We the people have decided to abandon freedom and liberty once again, "in the name of security" and abandon personal responsibility to our children and and give the government school the authority to deem what is necessary and proper for our children and wouldn't you know it, my wife and I are the only one's that have a problem with it. The others, as history dictates, will be like sheep led  to the slaughter!

First comes the parent athelete cell phone consent form that authorizes the coach to communicate with the child circumventing the parent as the buffer or safeguard between the government and the family,approved by district policy. This is a problem for me but since it was an opt in program, they gave me the option to maintain control of my family and of course, embraced it!.

Next, A letter about the high schools expectations from us and the students ( not that we are allowed to have any of the school) where they in bold print state that RULES BY THE SCHOOL AND THE IHSAA MUST BE FOLLOWED ( no matter what they impose upon the parent! ahd who is the IHSAA anyway? coming in a later post)

They tell us how to think, how to act and what guidelines will be followed whether we agree or not?

Not only do they have our children under surveillance all day, have officers roaming the halls and have the school in complete lockdown all day but they demand respect at all times ( while they assume the power over the people), they will CAREFULLY monitor ALL classes and progress in each class, they will be subject to attitude checks and our children will have their grades checked and signed by instructors in every class.

They are not allowed to speak freely about anything negative verbally or written, as on facebook, or subject to reprimand!?( no free speech?)

Penalties for failure to comply are to attend all study hall sessions, attend directed learning and suspension? ( what is directed learning?)

The kids WILL ride to and from the games on the bus! (NO options?)

They ask that we, the parent follow the chain of command but fail to acknowledge that it should go both ways, like the parent is in control of the child, NOT THE STATE!

Last ( for now, as the hits keep on coming) is Exhibit A, the Middleton Drug testing authorization form that essentially takes the authority of the parent and gives an open blanket authority to the school to do as  it sees fit to commit arbirary acts under "reasonable" suspicion?

Results from the test, paid for by the parent, do not go to the parent but to the school ( who is the paent here, the school or the state?) and The school will deem when these tests are necessary, at times yet to be determined in addition to the school taking the child to get tested?

By the way it is important to know that if our child is suspect, it is due to the Professional opinions of the coaches and the principal, subject to the  SRO before he even mentions  the parent would be contacted first?

These documents are mandatory to participate and failure to comply results in the inability to play.

So, are you really ok with abandoning all the freedom that was bestowed upon you by God and maintained by the sacrifices of generations of families of men and women whom have suffered to ultimate sacrifice?

Have you ever asked yourself how much freedom you are willing to give up for security? As one of our Founders said, if you would give just a bit, you deserve neither and both will be destroyed"

If you are interested in why this is a concern, please read my next post or previous posts regarding government entities willingness to encroach on the rights of the people, especially the posts regarding the school which has the power now to make law circumventing the legislature, with your legislator giving you two options, run for office or take them out of school (While they still forcefully take your mooney at the coersion of property loss?!)

If you care at all about freedom and liberty, you care about our military, the constitution or our heritage, or want to know more, please contact me and let me know someone out there has a pulse!

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

OVERRULED! Parental rights

OVERRULED! DO you feel like you have not only lost control of your rights, your decisions and feel the government has encroached in every avenue of your life? I have and it has got to stop!

Ever notice how when entering into debates with others, there are some that still don't see a problem with the increased size in government and the control they have taken without being given that authority?

Where did they get this authority to control and dictate the Inalienable Rights of man?

We have been successfully conditioned through government public schools, media and through the advertising of this propaganda!

Sure it is true that many  have neglected and become unwilling to take personal responsibility for our actions, by default increasing the size of government and this government has benefitted from the ignorance of man to enslave us, as all governments desire to do over time and the once independent people allow them to either "in the name of safety" or " its for the good of society" or "for the children!".

Do you suppose the people understand that by giving up their freedom they give themselves unto bondage or has the firm hold of Moral relativism allowed threm to believe that being indebted to another is actually freedom?

I posted this video as a tool to try to get others to see the tragedy that occurs when others make our decisions, dictate our rights and sell us into slavery!

As I run for state legislature in 2012, I will stand firm and bodly declare when laws are repugnant to preservation of the freedom and liberty of the people!

Thursday, November 3, 2011

List of anti american supporters for Occupy movement

WAIT A MINUTE!!! We are told that we prolife, proamerican, gun toting religion believing people are the terrorists while Our commie in chief and members of congress support the number one enemy to America in its entire history?

Just who is the enemy? Is it those for America or those against it? Arent we guranteed a reopublican form of government? Are we not guaranteed that the power is inherent in the people, that our right s are inalienable? That laws cannot be passed on the people if they are repugnant to the constitution?
Where am I? Whos land am I occupying, what are the rules we are playing by? Are these rules the same for the people as for our government? Wasn't the wrtitten constitution to prevent arbitrary rule of man, how did we get here? IGNORANCE AND APATHY!!!!

The Blaze has presented details on the people inside the OWS movement as well as those believed to be supporting it with money, material goods (sleeping bags, non-perishable foods, etc.), organizational skills, and even storage space. We have named names from the White House to the American Nazi Party, we have shown connections to several unions (like SEIU, UFT, and TWU) and pointed out the organizers like the Working Families Party and ACORN.
This morning we ask you to consider the recently posted Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors, and sympathizers put together by intrepid blogger Zombie.
“Local” supporters:
Communist Party USA
The American Nazi Party
Revolutionary Communist Party
Black Panthers
Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan
Some big names in the political world have also lent support to the cause:
President Barack Obama
Vice President Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
International Leaders and Governments:
Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei
Hugo Chavez
Revolutionary Guards of Iran
The Govt of North Korea
Communist Party of China

CDC concedes vaccines cause autism!

Really? Is this really a surprise? They created an FDA and USDA to supposedly protect our food, government schools to properly control our children, 502c3 to control the church, FCC to protect our airwaves, EPA to protect our environment and so on and it wouldn't be rocket science to believe that in every instance they have failed miserably in the protection they say was the reason for thier establishment.

Therefore this helps to clarify  that the creation of government entities if not to protect the people is to control them! Now its out, the heavily mandated vaccines and abuse of big pharma are used to control the population either through dumbing them down or to "soft kill" them and force them to submit unto the government that we have now authoroized unknowingly to be the giver and taker of our rights!


Here is another great news item that you won't find in your local papers or news stations, but none the less is very, very important.

We have always known and felt vaccines would do more harm than good for our children and that's why we don't participate in them. This is a very touchy subject for some families, all I can say is to

do your due diligence and pray what is right for you and your family.

1. U.S. Government Concedes Vaccines Cause Autism
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agency that oversees the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recently conceded the first vaccine-autism case. This case was filed in the no-fault National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as part of the Autism Omnibus proceedings in the U.S. Federal Court of Claims.

It was one of the first three cases chosen that alleged Thimerosal in childhood vaccines significantly contributed to a child developing autism. Clifford Shoemaker, of Shoemaker and Associates of Vienna, Virginia, is the
attorney of record in the Hanna Poling v. Secretary of HHS (case: 02-1466V). Experts filing on behalf of the petitioner, Hanna Poling, included pediatric neurologist, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman of Johns Hopkins University, and Maryland geneticist and epidemiologist, Dr. Mark Geier of the Genetic Centers of America.

This concession shows the dishonesty of the continual media spin coming from public health officials and others who maintain there is no evidence that Thimerosal, or any other part of any vaccine, has ever caused autism or, for that matter, has harmed anyone in any way. The facts are that the Vaccine Compensation Act has already compensated over 2,000 individuals who proved that they were harmed by vaccines, resulting in
settlements of nearly two billion dollars.

Additionally, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific/medical articles from some the world's best universities have long implicated Thimerosal in vaccines as a causal factor in neurodevelopmental disorders including
autism. Furthermore, in 2003, the U.S. House of Representatives' Government Reform Committee, after a 3.5-year investigation, concluded that Thimerosal caused the autism epidemic and that the FDA and health authorities were guilty of "institutional malfeasance" in covering it up.

Evidence supporting the connection between mercury and autism include:
1. Published studies from the US and France showing that urinary
porphyrins, a biomarker for body-burden of mercury, are elevated in patients
diagnosed with autistic disorders (http://www.mercury- freedrugs. org).

2. A published study by researchers at Harvard University that found
twice as much mercury and oxidative stress in the brains of those with an
autism diagnosis as found in the brains of those who were normal.

3. A study from the US showing a significant relationship between
increasing blood mercury levels and an increased risk of a diagnosis of an
autistic disorder.

4. Numerous papers by independent researchers showing a link between
increasing mercury exposure from childhood vaccines and the risk of a child
developing an autistic disorder.

5. Several papers showing that adding low levels of Thimerosal to
certain blood, brain, eye, immune, liver and/or muscle cells poisons their
cellular mitochondrial pathways and can induce cell death.

Today, despite being banned in Europe and restricted in 7 U.S. states, Thimerosal-containi ng flu vaccines are still recommended for routine administration to pregnant women and infants, with little or no warning of
the presence of this known poison in these and other vaccines. Vaccines have and will continue to save many lives. However, an immediate ban and recall of vaccines and other drugs containing mercury compounds used
in their production must be instituted immediately to stop the epidemic of developmental disorders, including autism, caused by the unsound use of mercury in medicine.

For more information, please visit CoMeD's website:

Also, here is another great site for more information from an expert on vaccinations.

Doctor Sherri Tenpenny's videos which shows many truths about vaccines that he's been hidden from. Here is a website with more info on Sherri Tenpenny:

Exposed: CDC deliberately manipulated, covered up scientific data showing link between vaccines containing mercury and autism
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Deniers of the link between mercury-laden vaccines and autism are going to have a hard time denying the latest findings by the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD). The nonprofit group has obtained critical documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that exposes the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) role in deliberately lying about and manipulating a key Danish study that showed a clear link between vaccines containing mercury and autism.

In 2003, the journal Pediatrics published a study conducted in Denmark that observed a significant decline in autism rates following the country's elimination of Thimerosal, a mercury-based component, from vaccines. But thanks to the CDC's corrupting influence, the published version of the study in Pediatrics actually claimed the opposite, and alleged that removal of Thimerosal brought about an increase in autism rates.

According to the documents, CDC officials removed large amounts of data from the study that showed a decline in autism rates following the removal of Thimerosal. The agency then twisted the remaining data to imply an increase in autism rates following the removal of Thimerosal, and suggested that there was no link between Thimerosal and autism.

Upon submission of the CDC's tainted version of the study to Pediatrics, the study's authors contacted CDC officials to let them know that the agency had incorrectly interpreted the data. They tried to tell the CDC that its figures and conclusions were wrong, and that corrections needed to be made.

The CDC allegedly responded by saying that it would take a look at the incorrect data, but proceeded to submit the corrupted version of the study to Pediatrics anyway. After encouraging the editors of Pediatrics to perform an expedited review of the corrupted study, the CDC ended up convincing the journal to publish the fraudulent study, which it did in 2003.

Now that this critical information has been officially released for the world to see, CoMeD is pressing the CDC to conduct a full criminal investigation into the matter, and make a formal declaration about whether or not scientific fraud was involved. CoMeD is also calling for a full, immediate retraction of the corrupted study from Pediatrics.

"This should not be tolerated by those who are entrusted with our children's health and well-being," says Lisa Sykes, President of CoMeD.

To learn more, visit:

Sources for this article include:

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

101 questions on the Constitution. Is your candidate worthy?

As I set out on my mission with my video camera and ask  questions to local government entities to hold them accountable as well as attempt another run for the Idaho state legislature with the hope that people still desire freedom and liberty and to honor the sacrifices of those that gave their lives for our freedom, I decided to write a questionnaire so that people that are fed up but aren't sure what to do will have some direction on how to keep their government officials accountable.

In previous posts I have written my own more basic questionnaire to ask the core questions basically asking  "what the heck arew the rules are we playing by these days if it isnt the constitution, or is it and if it is, which interpretation is it and if it isnt known, is it a derelection of their duty and are they guilty of the same thing they try to hang on "we the people" when they say, "Ignorance is no excuse of the law?"

Who then is more guilty of a crime, me for not knowing the entire law library or the government agency that doesnt even remember his oath?

So, in an attempt to bring back government accountability, here is a more comprehensive questionnaire provided by the National center for constitutional studies at that would probaly be better used to educate yourself unless you think you can retain an elected official long enough to have them answer all of the questions. Here is the list:

Identifying Constitutional Candidates

"But how can you tell when a candidate for political office is really a Constitutionalist?"

If the candidate is already in office he will have a voting record which will clearly show whether or not he is a Constitutionalist. Several organizations monitor the Congress and publish the results.However, if the candidate is a newcomer to politics you will have to test his knowledge of Constitutional principles by asking a few questions.

What Kind of Questions Should Be Asked?

We are listing a few of the many questions which might be addressed to a candidate in order to determine whether or not he stands for those basic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers.

As we go through these questions you will note that nearly all of them can be easily answered by anyone who has attended the "Making of America" seminars on the Constitution. In the text for this course the answers to all of these questions are explained and documented. If your candidate does not know the answers, invite him to take a Constitutional seminar at the earliest possible date. The eight hours required for this study (thirteen on audio or video tape) may turn out to be the best investment in political orientation he could find. No American should run for public office until he has studied the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Questions on General Principles

1. Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?

The founders said it is in the people "by God's own allowance." No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people's representatives.

2. In what way are "all men created equal?"

All humanity are equal in three ways: 1. equal before God, 2. equal before the law, 3. equal in their rights. In all other respects people are different.

3. What is an inalienable right?

An inalienable right is one which comes as an "endowment from the Creator" and cannot be violated without coming under the judgment of God.

4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?

The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5. What did the Founders mean by the "pursuit of happiness?"

This is a collective phrase designed to cover all of the other inalienable rights.

6. Give an example of an inalienable right which is essential to the pursuit of happiness.

The Founders believed, for example, that human happiness requires that each of us enjoy the right to acquire, develop and dispose of property. They believed that without the protection of property rights, all other rights are placed in serious jeopardy.

7. What are some of the other inalienable rights?

The inalienable rights of mankind include such things as the right of self government; the right of human beings to beget their own kind; the right of parents to rear their children free from outside interference (unless there is criminal abuse or neglect); the right to freedom of belief; the right to freedom of speech; the right to assemble; the right to petition; the right to change residence or one's job, etc.

8. What is the purpose of government?

The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide "liberty under law," which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty. and well-being of the people.

The American Structure of Government

9. What is a democracy?

A democracy is a government wherein decisions are made by the masses of the people rather than by elected representatives.

10. What is a republic?

A republic is a system in which the laws are passed and decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.

11. Why did Jefferson call the American system a democratic-republic?

Because the system allows the masses of qualified voters to participate in the election of their officials (democracy) and then the people's elected representatives enact the laws and administer the affairs of the people under majority rule but with the equal protection of individual rights (a republic).

12. Is it a mistake, therefore, to call the United States a democracy?

Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from "democracy" is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people's elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over "pure democracy" would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.

The Task of Controlling Power

13. Why is separation of power safer than concentration of power?

Government is "force" which Washington compared to "fire" and said government is a "dangerous servant" and a "fearful master." Power should be dispersed among the people where they can keep it under control.

14. How should the powers of government be separated?

First of all, the Founders wanted political power separated vertically. They considered the principal power base of society to be the family. However, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (police, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated to the community. Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to the higher level of the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the state level. The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders' pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all.

15. What remedies did the Founders provide if government officials violated the channel of power assigned to them?

Administrative pressures from other departments are provided and if his offenses are serious he can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.

16. Why did the Founders want the powers of government to flow from the bottom up rather than the top down?

Jefferson stated that a political unit governs best which governs least. In other words, the services which the people need from government are relatively simple and when circumstances are normal the people like to conduct their affairs with as little interference from the government as possible. Consequently, in the Founders' original plan for a happy and prosperous society, the functions of government were designed to be relatively simple and remarkably cheap.

17. Then why do we have such a complicated and expensive government today?

The professional politicians learned that in a war, depression, or a serious crisis, the people will endure higher taxes and a far greater concentration of authority on the higher levels of government. Certain politicians therefore set out to exploit every emergency as an excuse for the acquiring of more power. During most of the twentieth century ambitious politicians trumpeted the message that the government can solve practically all problems better than the people. Today, as a result, Americans are being literally "programmed" to death--and taxes have skyrocketed.

Separating Power Horizontally

18. How did the Founders separate power horizontally?

There are three functions of government at each level of society. One function is to make the law, another is to administer the law and a third is to interpret the law. These are all on the same horizontal level and are referred to as the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. The Founders wanted these three functions to be separated into equal, independent departments. At the same time, they wanted to coordinate these functions so that one department could not function without the other two. Each department was therefore assigned to serve as a check on the others. The idea of the Founders was to have these functions of government "coordinated but never consolidated." This was one of the most ingenious devices contributed by the Founders.

19. What happens if the separation of powers breaks down either vertically or horizontally?

The Founders warned that if the vertical separation of power should ever break down so that all power began to be concentrated in Washington, there would be a severely arrogant abuse of the people by government officials. They also said that if the legislative executive and judicial departments failed to act as a check on each other, there would be tyranny and the people would lose their freedom. For more than one full generation this is what has been happening.

Americans Experiment with Another System

20. Is the consolidation of government functions the trend today?

Yes. Consolidation of power is gravitating toward Washington at a pace which would have greatly alarmed the Founders.

1. What has caused this?

Beginning around 1900 certain wealthy influential groups lost confidence in the original American system and began propagandizing the people into believing that a "redistribution of the wealth" by the government would greatly improve the American life style. This theory of economics with its concentration of political power at the center of government is usually referred to as socialism. Samuel Adams vigorously warned against these principles. He said socialism violates equal protection of rights and completely destroys the concept of limited government. In fact, he said the Founders had done everything possible to make these collectivist policies "unconstitutional."

22. What has been the result?

These policies launched the United States on a wild and dizzy trajectory which has resulted in run-away inflation; a huge burden of national debt; taxes which are devouring nearly half of the peoples' earning power; a serious invasion of individual rights; and a virtual collapse of states rights.

23. Has socialism or "collectivism" worked anywhere in the world?

Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as communism, nazism, and fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called "peaceful" forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proven counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor's edge of perpetual bankruptcy. Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.

24. How did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?

They did it by setting up a "limited" form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the "chains" of the Constitution.

American Leaders Began to Abandon the Founders' Success Formula

25. Does this mean Theodore Roosevelt was In error when he said the President could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids?

Yes, he was turning the Constitution upside down. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as "usurpation."

26. Was President Woodrow Wilson also in error when he said the United States should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world?

Yes. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the United States should try to be friendly with all nations, but beholden to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war.

27. Was Franklin D. Roosevelt in error when he structured the New Deal?

Yes. The New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was "tax, tax -- spend, spend -- elect, elect!"

28. Was Lyndon Johnson in error when he said, "We will take from the haves and give to the have nots!"

The Founders would certainly have called it an error. There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to "soak the rich," but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes.

29. Was President Nixon in error when he continually tried to involve the United States in a "New World Order"?

Yes. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations.

30. Was President Carter in error when he began meddling in domestic affairs of foreign nations?

Yes. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the United States would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any president or secretary of state who has followed a policy of "interventionism," has operated outside of his Constitutional authority.

Presidential Violations of the Constitution

31. What about executive orders which are treated as laws after being published in the Federal Register?

In the eyes of the Founders these would be considered unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision but he has no authority whatever to make "laws" for the people since the Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure.

32. What about executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign governments?

This procedure is also unconstitutional. The Founders provided that all agreements with foreign nations must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Since American Presidents began holding summit conferences with the heads of foreign governments, they have been entering into secret engagements which very often never see the light of day let alone receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Each year there are many more executive agreements signed by the President than there are treaties ratified by the Senate.

Judicial Violations of the Constitution

33. What about new laws laid down by the Supreme Court?

This is called "judicial legislation." This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court.

34. How is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the Constitution?

The Founders made it very clear that the Supreme Court would be violating its assignment if it substituted its own opinions for that of the Founders. Until recently it has always been an established principle that the Constitution must be interpreted the way the Founders intended it and not according to the whims or caprice of modern justices.

35. Is there any way to curb the Supreme Court from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner?

Yes. A Judicial Reform Amendment would allow any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. A decision could also be overturned by concurring resolutions from three-fourths of the State Legislatures. Had this procedure been available the states would have undoubtedly outlawed forced busing of school children at least twenty years ago.

Unconstitutional Edicts of Regulatory Agencies

36. Is it Constitutional for an agency of the Federal Government to write rules and regulations which are enforced in the courts as "laws?"

No. This is a recent development in governmental procedures. It is called "administrative law." The Founders provided no power in any agency of government to make laws except the Congress.

Blurring the Founders' Division of Labor Between the States and the Federal Government

37. How did the Founders intend to divide the problem-solving powers between the States and the Federal Government?

James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, No. 45. He wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

38. How did the Founders know whether to assign a problem to the State or Federal Governments?

If a problem involved foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes on the high seas, navigable waters, naturalization, etc.) it went to the Federal Government. All other powers were retained by the States.

39. How many areas of power were ultimately assigned to the Federal Government?

The Constitution gives the Federal Government twenty powers. These are set forth in Article I, Section 8.

40. What if the Federal Government thinks it needs more power?

The government cannot legally exercise any powers except those which are specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The only way Washington can get any additional legitimate power is by an amendment.

41. Where does it say that the Federal Government is specifically restricted from exercising any power not granted to it by the States?

The Tenth Amendment

42. Then how did the government get so much power?

The dominating arrogance of the Federal Government today came about primarily through three channels:

 1. outright usurpation of power,

 2. an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, and

 3. distorting the Commerce Clause as the means of shattering the restrictive chains of the Constitution and expanding federal jurisdiction into hundreds of areas never intended by the Founders.

Subverting Two Important Constitutional Clauses

43. What was the Butler Case?

In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the "general welfare" of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.

44. In what way has the Commerce Clause been distorted to give the Federal Government unconstitutional powers?

This clause was simply designed to give the Federal Government sufficient power to insure the "free flow" of commerce so that the States would not interfere with inter-state shipments as they had done in the past. Since 1936 the original intent of the Founders has been expanded to include Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court), has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation.

Some Practical Questions

45. Doesn't the more complex nature of modern society require a far more extensive control of the economy by the Federal Government?

No. The more complex society becomes the more it needs the automatic problem-solving devices of a free-market economy operating with the least possible interference from government. As Adam Smith pointed out, government interference only adds to the complexity of the system and results in a serious deterioration of individual freedom.

46. What is a modern example of the Founders' original success formula solving some of the highly complex problems of a modern society?

No nation could have had a much more complex situation than West Germany right after World War II. Every major city in Germany was bomb-gutted and the people were surviving in basements and make-shift hovels. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany took over in 1949 and immediately initiated the basic economic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers. By using freedom instead of heavy-handed government regulations, West Germany achieved the highest standard of living in Western Europe within eight years. The West Germans were not only fully employed but importing foreign labor besides. Clothing, food and housing were abundant and cheap. West Germany became so prosperous she was the envy of socialized Sweden. It will be recalled that Sweden wasn't even in the war and had boasted of the superiority of her socialist controls. However, in Sweden a young married. couple has to wait ten years to get a one-room apartment because of the government monopoly over housing. It was obvious West Germany had chosen a better way.

Questions About Money and the Budget

47. What happened to the Federal budget after the "Butler" case?

In 1936 (the year of the Butler case) the Federal budget was around six billion dollars. By 1996, the looting of the American taxpayer had pushed the Federal budget to more than 1.6 trillion dollars!

48. Is it Constitutional for the government to spend more money that it takes in?

Yes. The Constitution allows the government to borrow in emergencies. Unfortunately, during the last 50 years Congress has continually found excuses to borrow whether there was an emergency or not. The only way to stop this is to replace the big spenders in Congress with constitutionalists who recognize that we are presently on a disaster course.

The National Debt

49. How much is the national debt today?

The U.S. National Debt is nearly five trillion dollars requiring interest payments which cost more each year than the entire cost of all wars we have ever fought. Future liabilities to which the government is already committed will require taxation of an additional six to eleven trillion.

50. How does the U.S. debt compare with the debts of other nations?

The United States now owes more than all of the rest of the nations of the world combined.

51. Why would the Founders have considered this gigantic indebtedness immoral?

The Founders said that no generation should go so deeply in debt that it becomes guilty of squandering the next generation's inheritance. They said such extravagance is immoral. All past generations tried to pay off all the debts accrued during their time. Ours is the first generation which has deliberately squandered the inheritance of its children.

What About Welfare?

52. But hasn't much of our money been spent for welfare and other important social programs?

This was the main excuse for sky-rocketing taxation and deficit spending. Tragically, however, the money has been squandered primarily to build a vast bureaucracy. It is amazing how many of the government's multibillion dollar social programs have provided only a pittance to trickle down to the poor, the sick and the elderly.

53. But didn't the government have to try to do something to help those in need?

The Founders specifically warned against this type of political deception where the compassion of the people is exploited to build big government and raise taxes. They said that all types of charity and welfare should be handled on the local level where abuses could be quickly detected and corrected.

54. But what if the states do not provide needed services?

The existence of a need on a state level does not create a power on the federal level. When a state fails to fulfill its obligation the pressure should be exerted on the State, not the federal government. Jefferson said there is no way to preserve freedom if all political power gravitates to Washington.
The National Debt and Foreign Aid

55. In view of America's tremendous national debt, why do we continue giving foreign aid to over a 125 countries?

This whole procedure violates the Constitution and common sense. What started out as part of the defense program in the interest of the United States has turned into an international Santa Claus give-away program, similar to the extravagant give-away programs at home. Tens of billions given away each year automatically add to the national debt.

Social Security

56. Is Social Security an insurance plan or a welfare plan?

The Supreme Court has held that it is a welfare plan. This means that it can be terminated at anytime. It also means the government can distribute its proceeds arbitrarily. The contributor to social security payments acquires no rights and receives only what the government condescends to distribute to him as "payments" if he qualifies under the government's arbitrary poverty level.

57. Is there a better way?

Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it.

58. Is the Federal Income Tax Constitutional?

Yes. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted according to the requirements of the constitution.

59. Is this the type of tax which the Founding Fathers would have employed?

No. They provided that direct taxes be apportioned to the states according to population, not according to the incomes of the people.

60. Has income tax been administered uniformly?

No. A graduated income tax violates the equal protection of rights. It violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property of accumulated wealth less sacred than those who have less.

61. Is it possible to administer the Income Tax fairly?

No. This could only be done by setting up a universal monitoring system similar to a "police state." This would violate all of the basic rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.

62. Would it ever be possible to repeal the Federal Income Tax?

Yes. By phasing out governmental activities which are clearly outside the Constitution, the cost of government would be greatly reduced and the income tax could be safely eliminated.

63. Would the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment interfere with defense and other legitimate Federal responsibilities?

No.Tariffs and other sources of Federal revenue would more than adequately provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government if its unconstitutional expenses were phased out. Who knows, there might even be a surplus!

64. Is a national sales tax constitutional?

Yes, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government may assess a sales (excise) tax as long as it is uniform throughout the United States.

65. What about the thousands of Federal-aid programs covering nearly every aspect of American life?

Federal grants are unconstitutional unless directly related to some power specifically delegated to the Federal Government. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would probably wipe out at least 95% of the Federal-aid programs presently plaguing the nation.

Federal Regulatory Agencies

66. What about EPA?

The Environmental Protection Act involves problems which the Founders delegated exclusively to the States where local supervision could prevent abuses and deal with over-regulation more readily. Today, federal control over air, water, and land environment is strangling the economy and suppressing the development of energy and natural resources.

67. What about OSHA?

Occupational safety and health are important responsibilities but they should never have been delegated to the Federal level. The Founders knew that government is too big, and the legal machinery too expensive for most citizens to handle. They therefore endure the disruptive and oppressive edicts of this agency because it has been too big for the average citizen to fight.
68. What about the Federal Communications Commission?

This agency was designed to "police" the traffic on the air waves but the FCC has used its licensing power to control the editorial content of programs. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

69. What about the Pure Food and Drug Administration?

There is no authority for this agency under the Constitution. If it is in the national interest to have such an agency it should have been authorized by an amendment. There is already a wide-spread criticism of the arbitrary manner in which this agency has exercised its broad spectrum of power.

70. What about Consumer Protection?

Here again we have an exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution. Do we really want that much power allocated to the federal level where the agency is so big and powerful that not even the largest corporations are able to cope with its abuses?

What About the Government Setting Up

Business Operations?

71. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the government to set up tax-exempt corporations or business operations to compete with tax-paying citizens?

The answer is no, unless the corporation or business is directly connected with an area of Federal responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. For example, an independent government corporation to provide mail service would be constitutional. However, a corporation set up to compete in the production of electricity, the manufacturing of clothes, or the operating of a chain of public restaurants, would not.

72. How many corporations and businesses does the government operate at the present time which are unauthorized by the constitution?

Around 700 corporations and 11,000 businesses.

73. Are all of these tax-exempt?

Yes. They are not only tax-exempt but most of them are being subsidized out of tax funds because they are not being operated efficiently.

What Caused the "Sagebrush Rebellion?"

74. Shouldn't all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?

Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

75. Which states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an equal footing?

All of the Western States and Alaska.

76. In what way were they forced to accept statehood unequally?

Large regions of these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

77. About how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these states?

The government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and 96% of Alaska.

78. Are any of these states attempting to get this land back?

Yes. The press has labeled this effort the "Sagebrush Rebellion," but it is not a rebellion. These states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to have this land turned back to them.

What About Locking Up State Territory As Wilderness Areas?

79. Does the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to lock up large blocks of land within a state as a "wilderness reserve?"

No. This violates the express provisions of the Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.

80. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest within the confines of a state?

No. This is not included in the list of territories which the federal government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the state. (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the Constitution to justify it. Historically, the states have had fewer forest fires and have maintained the state forests on a higher level than the national forests.

81. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within the confines of a State?

No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule state parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by the Federal Government.

What About Federal Control of Energy Resources?

82. Does the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the production of energy resources within a state?


Problems with Government Monopolies

83. What about the widely expanded activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission?

The Founders never intended the "regulation of commerce" to include cartel monopolies, fixing prices, fixing routes, and regulating industries into bankruptcy. The recent deregulation of airlines dramatically demonstrated the advantage of free-market competition over a system of unconstitutional governmental regulations.

84. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set prices?

Not in time of peace.

85. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set wages?

Not in time of peace.

The National Labor Relations Board

86. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to enter into labor-management disputes in the private sector?

No. This area of federal usurpation occurred during the "New Deal" days by completely distorting the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

The Department of HEW

87. Is there any Constitutional foundation for the extravagant and wasteful expenditures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?

No. Each of the agencies under HEW has developed since the Butler Case. The dictum in this case authorized the general welfare clause to be interpreted in a manner which extended government intrusion into areas specifically excluded from federal jurisdiction by the Founders.

88. About how much of the federal budget Is spent each year on these unconstitutional activities?

Around 600 billion dollars in 1996 which is approximately 1/3 of the federal budget.

89. Would it require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Department of HEW?

No. An act of Congress could dismantle this extremely costly department which has probably been more wasteful and nonproductive in its assigned area of activity than any other branch of the government.

The Equal Rights Amendment

90. Why was the Equal Rights Amendment defeated by the states?

In the beginning nearly everyone assumed that this amendment was designed to provide equal rights for women. This supposed objective was widely approved. It was only after 30 states had ratified this amendment that it was realized that the simple wording of this amendment would actually destroy a broad spectrum of rights which American women already have, such as the common law right as well as the statutory right to be supported, along with their children, by their husbands. ERA would not only have destroyed this right but also eliminated many rights relating to employment, maternity leave, insurance and survival rights which are presently provided by law.

Morality and Government

91. Do you believe that people's morals will affect their ability to enjoy freedom and liberty under the constitution?

Benjamin Franklin said: " Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

John Adams was equally explicit: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Samuel Adams added a final warning: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."


92. Does the Supreme Court have authority to hear cases involving moral issues such as abortion?

No. The original Constitution allowed the federal courts to hear only eleven kinds of cases, clearly outlined in Article III.

93. Is federal funding of abortion a violation of the Constitution?

Yes. The specific and limited authority granted to the Federal Government does not include any funding for abortions.

The Gold and Silver Standard

94. Was the United States taken off the gold and silver standard in violation of the Constitution?

Yes. The gold standard is written into the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and was removed by several acts of Congress without an amendment to the Constitution between 1934 and 1964. From the Founding Fathers standpoint this whole procedure was illegal.

The Federal Department of Education

95. Is it Constitutional for federal funds to be used in the financing of local schools?

No. The Founding Fathers warned against the funding of schools by the Congress. In fact, education in the U.S. has seriously deteriorated since federal funding began. James Madison equated the Federal funding of schools as extremely dangerous and said it was almost as bad as funding and controlling the churches of the nation.

96. Should the members of state and educational associations be required by law to pay dues to the National Educational Association?

No. The NEA is a private lobby with an annual budget of nearly $60 million dollars. It succeeded in getting the states to pass a law requiring the educators in state associations to pay dues to the NEA. These laws should be repealed. Teachers find themselves compelled to pay dues to this private organization which often advocates policies that are inimical to the best interests of American education.

Taxes on Dividends

97. Should stockholders be required to pay income taxes on their dividends when the corporation has already been subject to a corporate tax?

No. The stockholders are the owners of the company. They have already paid around 48% tax on the company's earnings. The residue should be distributed among the stockholders as funds on which the required tax has already been paid.

Control of Firearms

98. Should the Federal Government pass laws providing for the control of guns?

No. The Founders left gun control under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. They felt it was extremely dangerous to allow the federal government to "infringe" on the right to bear arms even in the slightest degree.

The Modern Method of Electing Senators

99. Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed?

The Founders would undoubtedly say yes. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people and set up a Senate to represent the individual states. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures and were the watchdogs of states rights. The Seventeenth Amendment took away the authority of the state legislatures to appoint senators. and therefore required senatorial candidates to appeal to the people in a popular election. This resulted in the senators frequently ignoring states rights in an effort to get more money for their states just as congressmen do. States' rights have been seriously deteriorating since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913. It destroyed an important element of balance which the Founders built into the Constitution.


100. Should the Bureau of Land Management be abolished?

Yes. This bureau has been rapidly phasing out the traditional grazing rights of ranchers and setting up impossible regulations on land which should have been turned over to the states when they were admitted into the Union.

Government Expenses

101. Can you find out how the government spends its money?

Yes. A complete breakdown of government spending is published each year by the Government Printing Office. This is required by the Constitution.