American History

Mike Lee: America has ‘deviated dangerously’ from country’s core values

Over the past 80 years, the country has “deviated dangerously” from what was once an obvious distinction between federal and state power, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah said. In the new series “Fox Nation 101: The Constitution” Lee took viewers through the history and significance of America’s founding documents, highlighting the principles and core values that have shifted over the nation’s history. The “dangerous” shift began in the 1930’s, Lee said, as the country, paralyzed by the Great Depression turned toward the federal government, thereby increasing its economic role significantly. “People understandably wanted solutions to the Great Depression. It’s understandable why some people approach this from the mistaken viewpoint that it was appropriate for the federal government to do everything that it did during the New Deal era,” Lee explained. But, he went on, “I think that planted some seeds that have proven dangerous over time. A lot of it resulted in our gradual neglect of these core constitutional protections of federalism and separation of powers.” Until the enactment of the New Deal, the country “more or less respected the difference between federal power and state power,” Lee said. “And we more or less recognized and respected the difference between legislative, executive and judicial power. That started to fray during the New Deal era, when we started pulling more and more responsibilities of government away from the American people and to Washington, D.C. “This, in turn, has created a lot of other problems because when Congress found itself all of a sudden having all this power, Congress realized that it couldn’t make that much law,” the senator added. Prior to that time, a law had to be passed in the House of Representatives, later passed in the Senate, and then submitted to the President of the United States for signature or veto, Lee explained. “If the President vetoes, it and it doesn’t become law unless two-thirds of both houses override that veto,” he said, adding “We’ve deviated dangerously from that formula over the last 80 years.” Click here to watch this Fox Nation 101 series, and to sign up.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is exactly right.  We really need to get back to basics and teach American civics.  If more Americans actually knew the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we wouldn’t be having many of the issues we’re having today.  As it relates to what Sen. Lee is talking about here.. the particular Amendment that comes to mind is the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which states, ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  In other words..  If the Constitution doesn’t specify that a function belongs to the federal government, then the federal government has NO authority in that area, and those powers/functions belong to the states.  That is the one Amendment to the Constitution in our great Bill of Rights that Congress routinely violates and ignores and nobody says anything.  IF we actually adhered to that amendment, we wouldn’t have a U.S. Dept of Education and a slew of other cabinet-level agencies.  Ironically, ever since Pres. Jimmy Carter (D) created the U.S. Dept of Education as a payoff to the teachers unions who helped get him elected, education in this country has tanked.  Again, if we followed the rulebook (i.e. the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights), we’d be doing MUCH better.  And, if more Americans knew these founding documents, and were taught actual American civics, we would be throwing a LOT of the bums in Washington D.C. out on their butts in the next election.  We recommend the following book:  “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, which you can get in paperback on Amazon.com for under $20.  Great read!!

How well do you know America’s founding documents? Watch ‘Fox Nation 101: The Constitution’

The new series “Fox Nation 101: The Constitution” explains the history and significance of one of America’s founding documents: The Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government, penned in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It was brought about by necessity. “As of the summer of 1787, when the Founders came together in Philadelphia, they understood that we wouldn’t survive as a country,” explained Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Fox Nation show. The United States declared independence on July 4, 1776, laying out the reasoning behind the war fought by the people of the original 13 colonies to free themselves from the Kingdom of Great Britain. Now, the new nation had to determine how to govern itself. “The biggest challenge for the Americans was that they no longer had a king. They no longer had a monarch,” said Randy Barnett, director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. “They had what was known at the time and is still known as a republic, meaning it was a nation that was set up to be ruled in some sense, more or less by the people themselves,” he continued. “And that created well-known historical challenges because most republics in history were either weak or had otherwise failed.” The first attempt to create a government to secure the ideals of the Declaration of Independence was the Articles of Confederation. “Following the Revolution, we instinctively and reflexively went to a very limited national government and we adopted something under the Articles of Confederation that was anemic at the federal level,” said Lee, observing that the fledging United States could not effectively defend itself from foreign enemies or resolve disputes between states. “That’s why we needed the Constitution,” he observed. “We found how to strike a more appropriate balance between a federal government that was powerful enough to do what needed to be done at the national level. But not so powerful as to jeopardize individual liberty.” The Founders were students of history and recent victims of the tyranny of a monarch, so they understood that any form of government that preserved the rights of its people must ensure that no single group came to dominate the rest. “This is one of the central messages that we gained from the American revolutionary experience,” remarked Lee. One solution to this conundrum is the separation of powers laid out in the first three articles of the Constitution. The three main functions of government were delineated to three separate and equal branches of government. The Legislative branch makes federal laws. The Executive branch, headed by the president, enforces and executes the laws. The Judicial branch interprets the laws and resolves any conflicts between parties who cannot agree on what the law actually means. “The genius of our constitutional system is that as long as you protect and preserve these structural protections, you prevent any one person or any one group of people from accumulating too much power,” said Lee. Barnett noted that this system of government inherently leads to clashes among the branches of government, as well as between individuals, state governments and the federal government, which is its intention. “If you have the legislature checking the executive branch, the president, and you have the president checking the legislature by means of veto power, and if you have the judiciary checking all the branches of government, and then you superimpose that over a federal system – in which you have 50 states that to some extent are checking the federal government and the federal government is certainly checking them – this is a recipe for conflict,” he said. “But that conflict is a feature, not a bug, of the U.S. Constitution.” Click here for more:

Normally we don’t use this forum to plug other mediums or shows.  But, we’ll make an exception here.  This program is excellent!  Thanks to the good folks at Fox Nation for all their efforts putting this together for us!       🙂

READ: The Declaration of Independence

“In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Doesn’t that give you chills?!?  That great document was nailed to a tree in all thirteen colonies/states, and was the ultimate finger to Great Britain.  Please consider this your Read of the Day.”  If you only read one thing here at The Daily Buzz, then READ THIS!..and then forward it on to all of your friends and family members…and be sure to fly your American Flag proudly.  Happy Independence Day!!    🙂

Trump, in fiery Mount Rushmore address, decries rise of ‘far-left fascism,’ calls on Americans to rise up

Speaking after the legendary U.S. Navy Blue Angels roared overhead, President Trump ushered in the July 4th weekend Friday night at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota with a full-throated condemnation of “far-left fascism” and a defense of “Judeo-Christian principles.” “This monument will never be desecrated,” Trump declared to cheers and applause. “These heroes will never be defaced. Their legacy will never, ever be destroyed. Their achievements will never be forgotten. And Mount Rushmore will stand forever as an eternal tribute to our forefathers and to our freedom.” The president asserted that recent attacks on the nation’s monuments, alongside “cancel culture” and the rise of the Marxist ideology of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, were symptoms of a “left-wing cultural revolution” that was threatening to “overthrow the American Revolution.” BLM explicitly advocates the destruction of the “nuclear family structure,” which Trump said was in fact the “bedrock of American life.” “We only kneel to Almighty God,” Trump remarked, in a clear shot at athletes who kneel in protest during the national anthem. “We will not be intimidated by bad, evil people. It will not happen.” “We are the country of Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Frederick Douglass,” Trump said. “We are the land of Wild Bill Hickock and Buffalo Bill Cody. We are the nation that gave rise to the Wright Brothers, the Tuskegee Airmen — Harriet Tubman, Clara Barton, Jesse Owens, George Patton — General George Patton — the great Louie Armstrong, Alan Shepard, Elvis Presley, and Mohammad Ali. And only America could have produced them all. No other place.” Americans are the ones, Trump added, “that put up the Hoover Dam, laid down the highways, and sculpted the skyline of Manhattan. We are the people who dreamed a spectacular dream — it was called: Las Vegas, in the Nevada desert; who built up Miami from the Florida marsh; and who carved our heroes into the face of Mount Rushmore. Americans harnessed electricity, split the atom, and gave the world the telephone and the Internet. We settled the Wild West, won two World Wars, landed American astronauts on the Moon — and one day very soon, we will plant our flag on Mars.” The United States “gave the world the poetry of Walt Whitman, the stories of Mark Twain, the songs of Irving Berlin, the voice of Ella Fitzgerald, the style of Frank Sinatra — the comedy of Bob Hope, the power of the Saturn V rocket, the toughness of the Ford F-150 — and the awesome might of the American aircraft carriers,” Trump said. “Americans must never lose sight of this miraculous story.” “We will state the truth in full, without apology: We declare that the United States of America is the most just and exceptional nation ever to exist on Earth,” Trump said. “We are proud of the fact that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and we understand that these values have dramatically advanced the cause of peace and justice throughout the world.” Trump, who separately praised police officers and vowed to defend the Second Amendment, then announced plans to create “a new monument to the giants of our past.” He said he would sign an executive order to establish the “National Garden of American Heroes” — a “vast outdoor park” to feature the statues of the “greatest Americans to ever live.” After Trump spoke, the White House released text of an executive order establishing the garden, which expressly notes that it will include only lifelike representations and eschew “modernist or abstract interpretations.” A preliminary list of people to be honored in the garden includes John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, MLK, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Ronald Reagan, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Antonin Scalia, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, Jackie Robinson, Christopher Columbus, Junipero Serra, and Betsy Ross In his address, Trump characterized endemic efforts to terminate and humiliate dissent as a form of “totalitarianism” and an “attack on our magnificent liberty” — and promised that it “will be stopped very quicky.” “One of their political weapons is ‘Cancel Culture’ — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees,” Trump said. “This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values, and it has absolutely no place in the United States of America. This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly. We will expose this dangerous movement, protect our nation’s children, end this radical assault, and preserve our beloved American way of life.” The “violent mayhem we have seen in our streets and cities,” which are “run by liberal Democrats in every case,” Trump said, “is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism and other cultural institutions. Against every law of society and nature, our children are taught in school to hate their own country and to believe that the men and women who built it weren’t heroes, but villains. The radical view of American history is a web of lies.”

What an excellent speech!  For more, click on the text above.      🙂

Poll: 3-in-4 Voters, Majority of Black Americans Oppose Tearing Down Mount Rushmore

The overwhelming majority of likely U.S. voters, including a majority of black Americans, oppose the tearing down of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial featuring Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln, a poll finds. While rioters, as well as some Republican and Democrat lawmakers, have sought to remove monuments, statues, and flags associated with the Civil War and the nation’s presidents, the overwhelming majority of Americans say they are opposed to such plans. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds 75 percent of likely U.S. voters oppose closing or changing Mt. Rushmore in Keystone, South Dakota. Less than 20 percent said they support the removal of Mt. Rushmore. By a 56-percent majority, black Americans said they oppose tearing down Mt. Rushmore, while only about 35 percent said they support removing the monument. Likewise, more than six-in-ten Democrats, 76 percent of swing voters, 82 percent of white Americans, and 88 percent of Republican voters said they oppose tearing down Mt. Rushmore. The Rasmussen Reports survey also asked likely voters if they opposed or supported removing statues in honor of Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from public places. More than 70 percent of all likely voters said they opposed tearing down statues dedicated to the two men. Majorities in every racial, income, age, gender, political, and educational attainment group said they oppose tearing down statues and buildings honoring Washington and Jefferson — including 54 percent of black Americans, 78 percent of white Americans, 57 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of Republicans, and 75 percent of swing voters. For years, Americans by huge majorities have opposed a post-structuralist agenda to tear down and remake the nation’s historical monuments and statues. In a 2017 Rasmussen Reports survey, nearly 90 percent of Americans said they oppose tearing down monuments honoring former presidents. The poll surveyed 1,000 likely U.S. voters from June 29 to 30 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

The idea of desecrating, or tearing down, Mount Rushmore is a sentiment held only by these who just hate America in general, and those idiot millennial punks who have been bain-washed by their Marxist teachers into thinking that our history is evil and racist all around…and who never were really taught American civics in school.  Glad the silent majority is still opposed to tearing down our history.  But, that silent majority now more than ever needs to stand up and fight back against these punks who are trying to tear our country down.

Editorial: The use and abuse of history: Removal of statues means historically rudderless America

Two days ago, the mayor of Detroit ordered a bust of Christopher Columbus removed from its pedestal. It was a peaceful removal for the Italian-born discoverer of the new world. After all, last week in Boston he was beheaded and in Richmond he was pushed into a lake. One supposes he is used to the harsh treatment. In many cities and states, his namesake holiday has long been replaced with Indigenous Peoples Day. In a few decades, it is not inconceivable he will be relegated to a proverbial footnote of history. Of course, who or what Columbus will be a footnote to is now a live question. Statues of Confederate generals are also being torn down and desecrated. They were on the losing side of history, so many Americans proclaim they won’t be missed. Since they remind us of an ugly time in our past, better to eradicate their presence altogether. Then it will be as if it never happened. Or so the logic would appear to run. But wait! After wiping out the leading lights of the Confederacy, it seems that Northerners, too, have a little housekeeping to undertake. This week, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh supported a circulating petition to disappear (let’s not sugarcoat matters) a statue of Abraham Lincoln standing before a freed, kneeling African-American. The petition reads: “My name is Tory Bullock and I’ve been watching this man on his knees since I was a kid. It’s supposed to represent freedom but instead represents us still beneath someone else. I would always ask myself “If he’s free why is he still on his knees?” No kid should have to ask themselves that question anymore.” Of course, the erstwhile slave is not kneeling before or even looking at President Lincoln. He is staring off into the distance, in a position, shackles now broken, to rise. The scene, seen from a perspective different from Mr. Bullock’s, is of hope and vitality. Lincoln is less the author of the slave’s freedom than a midwife. And in a sense, he is already forgotten as the rising figure looks out and away into the distance, expectant and resolute. What will happen next is easy to predict. Statues and depictions of the Founding Fathers will come down. It does not matter if you authored the Declaration of Independence. You’re out. It will take a little while, but the will and hatred on the progressive left is strong. Their ability to instill knee-jerk fear in average Americans is pernicious (see the Mayor of Boston), and common-sense and knowledge of history has so departed any would-be opponents that in the coming decades an outright revision of American history — both as it’s symbolized in statues and memorials and as its published in books and taught in our schools — will occur unimpeded. It won’t stop with the Founding Fathers. Anyone, of any gender, found with a less-than-ultra-progressive stamped passport is on the chopping block. This is a race to the bottom. And in the end, we will be left with a historically rudderless America. Gone will be any shared sense of purpose or pride. In its place we will find new totems, decided by those in power. The wholesale eradication of a person’s (and a people’s) history is a tactic most commonly seen in authoritarian countries. Mao and Stalin and Castro understood this well. If you go back far enough, these are the great teachers of America’s progressive left. They are loathe to admit it, but it’s right out of the totalitarian playbook. And now that playbook is being put to use in our country. If this does not sit well with you, if you sense the Founders of this country, imperfect though they were in private life, nonetheless created a republic with good and true ideals to aspire toward — timeless principles like “all men are created equal” and the “self-evident” notion “all men are created equal” — and that these ideals are worth preserving, then now is the time to push back against the progressive agenda. In a few years, it will be too late.

Agreed..  Thanks to the editorial staff at The Washington Times for the timely piece.  This whole purging of our history is very very dangerous.  Its what the Germans and Japanese have done with respect to their involvement in WWII.  History is what happened; NOT what we wished had happened, don’t want to talk about because it hurts our precious tender feelings.  The Civil War happened.  To those who have a problem with that fact,  get the hell over it!  We need to fight to ensure these statues of Christopher Columbus, Confederate generals and so on stay standing.  They are reminders of what happened and where we came from…and in many respects, how far we’ve come.  And, we need to revisit American civics in school.  If you have kids,  a MUST read is “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History” by Thomas Woods.  Its all the stuff you weren’t taught in junior high, and high school from our country’s founding through about the Bill Clinton presidency.  You can get it at Amazon for under $20 new…and it’s worth it.

Opinion: Freedom hangs in the balance during this election season

There once was a time when the United States was known as the “land of the free.” There was a day when the Statue of “Liberty” stood guard on our eastern shores. There once was an hour, not that long ago, when our nation stood resolute in declaring the cause of freedom to be our supreme value, our bonding glue and our greatest cause. Today, however, as our intelligentsia shamelessly dismisses our constitutional rights while aggregating unto themselves more and more personal power, these seminal principles hang in the balance. Today, we stand at a precipice — a time of decision. During this election season, we must decide what kind of people we will be. What kind of nation will we leave our children? What is our highest good? What do we value most? Will we, henceforth, be a free people, or will we be safe? In the heat of any battle, we often feel as if the fight we face is unprecedented. But it is not. No, we have been here before. Consider the words of The Great Communicator of over a half-century ago. Not only were they incredibly prescient for his time, but they were eerily prophetic for ours: “[Today] … we are at war … If we lose … history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening … “We have come to a time for choosing. Either we accept the responsibility for our own destiny, or we abandon the American Revolution and confess that [those in] a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. “Already, the hour is late. Government has laid its hand on health, housing, farming, industry, commerce, [and] education … Government tends to grow [and] take on weight and momentum, as public servants say, always with the best of intentions, ‘What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power …’ “We are being asked to buy our safety … by selling into permanent slavery [and giving up our] freedom because we are ready to make a deal with [our] slave masters. “Alexander Hamilton warned us that a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one. Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow. Choosing the high road cannot eliminate that risk. “Already, some of the architects of [our safety] have hinted what their decision will be if their plan fails … [They believe it is better for us] to live on our knees than die on our feet … “If we are to believe that nothing is worth the dying, when did this begin? Should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery rather than dare the wilderness? Should Christ have refused the Cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have refused to fire the shot heard ‘round the world? Are we to believe that all the martyrs of history died in vain? “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We can preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we can sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here [and] did all that could be done.” — Ronald Reagan, 1964 Yes, the history of the United States is grounded in the long, and often bloody, fight for freedom. Our highest good has never been the easy life of safety. We have fought wars for freedom. The Revolutionary War was a battle for freedom. The Civil War was a fight for freedom. We sacrificed the lives of thousands during World War I and World War II for freedom. None of these conflicts were “safe.” None of these battles were engaged for the fleeting promises of personal health. All were fought for the eternal principle of human liberty. It is reported that Dwight Eisenhower once said, “If you want security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking … is freedom.” Or to paraphrase Alexander Hamilton from above, “If you prefer safety for freedom, be prepared for a master because you deserve one.” On Nov. 3, all of us have a “rendezvous with destiny.” Will we vote for the safety of the former Soviet Union that the Democrats seem to hold in such high regard, or will we vote for the freedom promised by the American Experiment and its Constitution? May history, and our children, judge that we “justified our brief moment here” and “did all that could be done.”

Indeed..  That powerful slap upside our heads was written by Dr. Everett Piper, PhD.  Dr. Piper is the former president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, and author of “Not A Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth” (Regnery 2017).  Nov. 3rd will definitely be probably the most important elections in my lifetime, and freedom as we understand it WILL be hanging in the balance.  It already is..

National Anthem Day — 5 things that might surprise you about the Star-Spangled Banner

It’s rare that a song that is so ubiquitous and connected to American culture (and its corresponding patriotism) would be so steeped in both controversy and intrigue. Most of us are aware of the basic history behind the “Star-Spangled Banner” – our national anthem, which was codified into law on March 3, 1931. Trapped aboard the British ship HMS Tonnant during Great Britain’s attack on Baltimore’s Fort McHenry in September of 1814, Francis Scott Key witnessed the relentless overnight bombardment of the American garrison on September 13-14, 1814. He was so moved by the experience – and so relieved to see “through the night that our flag was still there,” that the struggling poet penned the song’s (originally titled, “Defense of Fort McHenry”) now immortal lyrics. But why did it take over a century to be canonized into law as our national anthem and how did it all happen? Like America’s history itself, the song’s triumphant rise was dependent on both providence and the persistence and talent of many people. Click here to learn five things that might surprise you about the “Star-Spangled Banner.”

Even though the media is focusing on today being “Super Tuesday,” we’re proud to wish you a very Happy National Anthem Day!!  Thanks to Paul J. Batura for that outstanding piece!  Paul is a writer and the author of seven books, including, “GOOD DAY! The Paul Harvey Story.” He can be reached on Twitter @PaulBatura or by email at Paul@PaulBatura.com     🙂

Who was the first to live in the White House?

As the country gets set to commemorate Presidents Day, it’s time to reflect on the most famous address in the world: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington. That’s the White House — the president’s official residence in the nation’s capital. The first president, George Washington, chose the location in 1791, but never lived there. John Adams and his wife, Abigail, were the first occupants of the President’s House, moving into the unfinished structure in 1800. Fourteen years later, British troops burned it to the ground during the War of 1812. The original architect, Irish-born James Hoban, was appointed to rebuild the house, and President James Monroe and his wife, Elizabeth Kortright, took residence in 1817. The building’s South Portico was constructed during Monroe’s administration in 1824. The North Portico was built in 1829 under President Andrew Jackson. Construction of the Oval Office — the president’s work quarters — took place in 1909 when Howard Taft was president as part of a project to expand the executive wing. In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson’s wife, Ellen, planted the outdoor White House Rose Garden, the backdrop for press conferences, bill signings and special ceremonies. The White House Residence comprises 132 rooms and 35 bathrooms, and has six levels. Additionally, there are 412 doors, 147 windows, 28 fireplaces, eight staircases, and three elevators. Painters need 570 gallons of paint to cover the outside surfaces. President Theodore Roosevelt officially gave the White House its current name in 1901 on his presidential stationery. It remains the only private residence of a head of state open to public visitors without an admission charge.

And if you haven’t been, put it on your bucket list.  A tour of the White House, regardless of who the current occupant is, is definitely worth it.     🙂

Founding fathers never discussed wall of separation between church and state

School civics classes teach that the Constitution guarantees the right to remain silent, freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, and a wall of separation between church and state. Except the founding document never actually talks about a wall. “It’s something that the courts and anti-religious groups created to keep religion out of our public square,” says John Bursch, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. Like so much of founding-era wisdom, the concept of separation of church and state sprung from the mind of Thomas Jefferson — though he was not part of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, nor was he in that first Congress that drew up the amendments that would become the Bill of Rights. The third of those 12 amendments sent by Congress to the states for ratification included the admonition that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Only 10 of the 12 amendments were ratified at the time — the first two didn’t earn enough states’ approval — which is how the third amendment became the First Amendment in late 1791. Enter Jefferson a decade later, in early 1802, now in the White House and being battered by his political enemies, the Federalists. Publicly pious and eager to show it, they promoted days of fasting and prayer and wanted Jefferson to follow John Adams’ lead and proclaim them from the newly opened White House. He fired off a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, in which he laid out his vision of “a wall of separation between church and state.” The Library of Congress in the 1990s decided to try to figure out more about what was behind Jefferson’s letter. They roped the FBI into helping out, and the bureau used its state-of-the-art lab facilities to recover the rest of Jefferson’s original draft. The draft reveals that Jefferson originally wrote of a “wall of eternal separation between church and state.” And the draft also reveals that Jefferson had no intention of it being “a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more,” James Hutson wrote for the Library of Congress. Indeed, he says, two days after he wrote the letter, he attended a prayer service held in the chambers of the House of Representatives. Jefferson would attend similar services “constantly” throughout his presidency, Mr. Hutson wrote. Rob Natelson, a leading constitutional scholar who now heads the Independence Institute’s Constitutional Studies Center, said turning to Jefferson for wisdom about the Constitution would be like asking someone on the political fringe today. “If you want to understand the Constitution, you’re much better off looking at people like James Wilson,” he said. The letter to the Danbury Baptists was obscure for decades, only gaining new attention when Jefferson’s writings were published in 1853 and reprinted in 1868 and 1871, Mr. Hutson wrote. But some important people took notice. In 1879, the Supreme Court, in a case dealing with a Mormon who cited his religious duty as a defense against bigamy charges, cited Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists as the guiding light of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. “Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite for the unanimous court. “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In 1947, the court for the first time would extend that separation to the states, ruling that the “wall must be kept high and impregnable” — yet also ruling that New Jersey could provide busing for Catholic school students and not run afoul. In the 1980s, then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist would complain that the court had bungled things by citing Jefferson as the expert, calling the wall language a “misleading metaphor.” And the high court has repeatedly struggled to figure out what the wall looks like and when its impregnability is threatened.

And that’s precisely because there is no so-called separation of church and state.  As this article properly points out, it is NOWHERE to be found in any of our founding docs; certainly not in our Constitution or our Bill of Rights.  It was a phrase coined by Jefferson in a letter to a group of Baptists in Connecticut.  That’s it!  Don’t believe me?  Then pick up a copy of “The Myth of Separation” by Dr. David Barton  (www.wallbuilders.com).