Click Here to listen to the Chris Charles Show…

Past to Present: Thomas Jefferson on the Constitution
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, September 6, 1789
Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, June 24, 1813

The Economy
Ron Paul Sounds Off on Economic Mess
U.S. Economy on Brink of Disaster

President Barack Hussein Obama

Will Obama have to be better because he’s black?
Obama: ‘Only Government’ Can Fix What Ails Us…

Global Warming
Oceans are cooling according to NASA
Snow falls in United Arab Emirates for only second time in recorded history…

Every Sunday 2 PM MST, 4 PM EST. To listen and call in click here.

The following are excerpts written by John Adams in about May 1776, at the cusp of revolution and independence. He sought to discuss the future of the new republic and what its government might look like. I will comment more on them in the coming days (there is a point dear reader, alas, a point)

THOUGHTS ON GOVERNMENT
(John Adams)

Pope flattered tyrants too much when he said,

” For forms of government let fools contest, ”
That which is best administered is best.”

Nothing can be more fallacious than this: But poets read history to collect flowers, not fruits…

We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form. Upon this point all speculative politicians will agree, that the happiness of society is the end of government, as all divines and moral philosophers will agree that the happiness of the individual is the end of man. From this principle it will follow, that the form of government, which communicates ease, comfort, security, or in one word happiness, to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is the best.

All sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this.

If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men, in whose breasts it predominates, so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it. Honor is truly sacred, but holds a lower rank in the scale of moral excellence than virtue. Indeed the former is but a part of the latter, and consequently has not equal pretensions to support a frame of government productive of human happiness.

As good government, is an empire of laws, how shall your laws be made ? In a large society, inhabiting an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to make laws. The first necessary step then, is, to depute power from the many, to a few of the most wise and good. But by what rules shall you choose your representatives ?

Agree upon the number and qualifications of persons, who shall have the benefit of choosing, or annex this privilege to the inhabitants of a certain extent of ground.

A representation of the people in one assembly being obtained, a question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body ? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one assembly. My reasons for this opinion are as follow :

1. A single assembly is liable to all the vices, follies and frailties of an individual; subject to fits of humor, starts of passion, flights of enthusiasm, partialities or prejudice, and consequently productive of hasty results and absurd judgments. And all these errors ought to be corrected and defects supplied by some controlling power.

2. A single assembly is apt to be avaricious, and in time will not scruple to exempt itself from burdens which it will lay, without compunction, on its constituents.

3. A single assembly is apt to grow ambitious, and after a time will not hesitate to vote itself perpetual. This was one fault of the long parliament, but more remarkably of Holland, whose assembly first voted themselves from annual to septennial, then for life, and after a course of years, that all vacancies happening by death or otherwise should be filled by themselves, without any application to constituents at all.

4. A representative assembly, although extremely well qualified, and absolutely necessary as a branch of the legislative, is unfit to exercise the executive power, for want of two essential properties, secrecy and despatch.

5. A representative assembly is still less qualified for the judicial power; because it is too numerous, too slow, and too little skilled in the laws.

6. Because a single assembly possessed of all the powers of government, would make arbitrary laws for their own interest, execute all laws arbitrarily for their own interest, and adjudge all controversies in their own favor.

But shall the whole power of legislation rest in one assembly ?

Most of the foregoing reasons apply equally to prove that the legislative power ought to be more complex— to which we may add, that if the legislative power is wholly in one assembly, and the executive in another, or in a single person, these two powers will oppose and encroach upon each other, until the contest shall end in war, and the whole power, legislative and executive, be usurped by the strongest.

The judicial power, in such case, could not mediate, or hold the balance between the two contending powers, because the legislative would undermine it. And this shows the necessity too, of giving the executive power a negative upon the legislative, otherwise this will be continually encroaching upon that.

To avoid these dangers let a distinct assembly be constituted, as a mediator between the two extreme branches of the legislature, that which represents the people and that which is vested with the executive power.

The Founding Fathers believed without a doubt that religion was key for the survival of the Republic. It established a code of ethics and conduct that was required if men were to live together and free. In terms of the continued removal of religion from education, consider the following:

So far has the experiment of eliminating religion from even
primary schools been pushed, that these have become truly
“Christless and Godless.” This change is recent. It is only
within a few years—within a generation—that the old methods
of disciplining the young in morals and religion have been
made to yield to the new ones resting on expediency, good
manners, and supposed worldly advantage. The beginnings
of the change were gradual; within the last ten years advocates
of the exclusion of all religious teaching have been loud,
urgent, imperative, and successful. The demand to secularize
education admits of no question.

The secularizing of our nation is of great concern today. Whereas people have taken the Constitution’s desire to disenfranchise religion (remove it form state sponsorship), as a cause for removing it altogether from our society.

So the question begs, “Can a republic, of all forms of government, endure, whose children, for generations, are educated in schools without religion, without God?”

Would it surprise you to learn the above quotations were from an article in the North American Review, titled, “Religion in Schools,” (written by Right Rev. B. J. McQuaid, D.D.) in April 1881?

It seems the secularization of education began a long time ago. What does this mean?

In 1914 Mary Antin, a Russian immigrant who arrived in the United States as a child in 1894, wrote very eloquently in defense of the “new immigration” of the time. She wrote a book called “A Complete Gospel of Immigration.”

What immediately strikes one is the intense desire of those immigrants to become “Americans.” No, not talking cultural assimilation where they give up their heritage, but the desire to join in our community and our culture and make it a part of their own. It was frustrating to Antin that this was so difficult, and it was.

I’ll quote her, “The average immigrant of today [1900s], like the immigrant of 1620, comes to build…”

Let’s stop there. It’s very different. They do not seek to “build” today.
Today’s Mexican immigrants come to take. They work, and some work hard, and then they send most of what they make home. Or they are seasonal workers who return home, with their earnings, and many (most) without paying taxes.

While they are here, they also take liberties of our health and educational systems, free of charge.

This is pure insanity. The Democrats want more voters, the Republicans cheap labor.

I’ll continue Antin’s words:

“[they come] to build a civilized home under a civilized government, which diminishes the amount of barbarity in the world.”

They do not come today, as our ancestors did, to build a home. They come to take back their land, to take money, and to take from our liberal systems that beg to be exploited.

Who can blame them? We make it so easy.

We are the best, last hope, but if we continue to allow our politicians to sell us out, who knows what will happen.

Has professor Carol V. Hamilton warped Federalist #8 to fit her personal viewpoint? She writes:

Even taken out of context, this passage possesses its own internal logic, and, like the rest of #8, it resonates with contemporary political discourse. The warlike rhetoric of Republican hawks does suggest an elevation of “the military state … above the civil.” Americans are frequently encouraged to regard the military with gratitude and awe. The founding generation vividly remembered when redcoats could burst into their houses to conduct searches. They knew the old, defiant English proverb, “a man’s home is his castle.”

More later…

I will comment more on this later, but take some time to read what the “Founding Fathers” had to say about the conditions and stipulations for becoming a citizen.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 (Citizenship)

Click link above.