The Brilliance of the Electoral College

Residents of less populous states like Rhode Island were leary of signing the Constitution because they feared they would be controlled by more populous states like New York. So, in order to make sure that each state had an equal say in who would be President, the founding fathers created the Electoral College.  It was essentially devised as a means of getting the smaller states to sign the U.S. Constitution.

Look at it this way. When the 13 American colonies were a part of Britain, the most populous part of the British Empire was in Britain. So it was people who lived in the most populous area of the British Empire (mainly the King), who decided how the government was going to be run. The colonies had no say. They essentially had to give into the whims of the King.

The electoral college is based on the idea of Federalism, or the idea that states are sovereign and the Federal Government can't control them. According to the 10th amendment, the Federal Government has certain powers, but anything not mentioned in the Constitution is relegated to the States to decide.

So, to protect Federalism, to protect state sovereignty, the founders created the electoral college. It essentially made it so the most populous could not gain control of the Federal Government in such a way that would essentially turn the rest of states into colonies. That's the system the founders wanted to get away from; it's the reason for the American Revolution.

They understood that there were areas of the United States that were highly populated. They also understood that people tend to gravitate to certain populations centers, so they understood that the population centers change over time. They understood that ideas change over time.

They wanted to make sure that regardless of where the population centers were that they maintained the integrity of Federalism. They wanted to maintain the power of the states. It's to support the idea that elections are decided by the States and not by the population.

A perfect example here is California and New York. California and New York are run by a bunch of liberals and progressives. Most of the people in these states are inculcated to believe in liberal and progressive ideals. They are also high population centers. So, imagine if these two states decided how the government was run. All the rest of the states would lose their sovereignty and become no more significant than colonies.

This idea turned out to be ingenious.

It was never even questioned until the progressive Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and George Bush won the electoral vote. It wasn't questioned again until progressive Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 and Donald Trump won the electoral vote.

Progressives essentially are claiming that Hillary should have won and that Donald Trumps presidency is illegitimate. But they are incorrect in their assertions. They are incorrect to assert that Hillary would have won if the rules were different. They fail to understand why the electoral college was created, and also what the reason for it is.

What they fail to tell you is that the rules at the present time make it so that Electoral Votes matter and the Popular Vote doesn't matter. For this reason, campaign strategies revolve around winning the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

There are some states that have lots of democrats, such as New York and California. Groupings of these states are called the blue wall, meaning that republicans in these states can vote, but their votes don't matter. There really isn't much point in Donald Trump spending much time there.

On the other hand, there are some states that have a lot of republicans, such as Texas. Groupings of these states are called the red wall, meaning that democrats in these states can vote, but their votes don't matter. There really isn't much point in Donald Trump spending much time there.

With the system the way it is, swing states are all that matters. Donald Trump and Hillary will spend most of their time in states like Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. With the electoral college, voters in these swing states are usually what determine who wins elections.

With the rules as they are, Trump gave up in New York and it's 28 electoral votes, and California and its 55 electoral votes. Instead, he spent a lot of time in Wyoming to capture its 3 electoral votes, Michigan to capture its 16 electoral votes, and Ohio to capture its 18 electoral votes. This strategy paid off, as all these swing states gave Trump their electoral votes.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume, that prior to the 2016 election cycle, the electoral college was abolished. This would have changed the strategy. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would have spent hardly any time in less populous states, so that would take most of the swing states off the table. It would essentially take 80% of states off the table. Instead, they'd spend their time in New York and California.

If this happened, Trump and Clinton would have spent all their time campaigning in these two states. The campaigns would focus only on the issues that were relevant to the people in these population centers, which would probably include advancing the progressive agenda. The issues relevant to the rest of the nation would be irrelevant as the candidates would ignore those states.

Why, you ask, would Trump spend time in blue states like California and New York? Well, because there are a lot of republicans who do not vote in New York because they feel it is a waste of time. If they knew their vote counted, they would be more likely to vote. So Trump would be after these voters. Since there are a ton more potential voters in New York than New Hampshire, he would spend most of his time in New York and California, and maybe Florida and Texas.

This strategy would have made 80% of states irrelevant. The people living in these states would have no say in who becomes President, and they would essentially become slaves to the five largest states. These states would essentially be colonies rather than states.

So, with a different strategy, it is highly likely that Donald Trump would have been able to accrue the votes necessary to win the popular vote and still defeated Hillary.

Now, let us bring back the electoral college.

I would now like to use a simile that Rush Limbaugh used to put this into perspective. Let's use the 1960 world series, which had the New York Yankees playing the Pittsburgh Pirates. Over the course of four games, the Yankees scored a total of 55 runs and the Pirates scored a total of 27 runs. So, in essence, the Yankees scored the most runs, so they won the popular vote and should have won the world series.

But the total number of runs is not what determines the winner of the World Series. The winner of the world series is not who scores the most runs, it's who wins the most games. The Pirates won four of the seven games, so they won the world series. The Yankees won the popular vote, but the Pirates won the electoral vote, meaning the Pirates won and the Yankees lost.

The strategy to win the Presidency is not to get the most popular votes, it's to get at least 270 electoral votes. Trump accomplished this, and so he is our President-elect.

The way it is now, with the rules as they are set by the Constitution, talks between people from populous and non-populous states do occur, because we are a united nation where all states have a say in how the Federal government is run. Such talks are important to change minds, especially if the people of one state have a better way of running the Federal government.

In the United States, there's a vast amount of land that is divided into States. The Federal government is controlled by the people through the states. The Constitution was ratified by the states. The Bill of Rights was ratified by the states. And every President has been elected by the states. This is the same way the states controls the House and the Senate. This gives every person in every state a voice in how the country is run.

Another way to think of it is to think of America as a Democracy. This is what many young people think we are. This is what liberals think we are. So, when they see that Hillary won the popular vote, and she did not win, they see this as non-democratic.

You see? The problem is that we are not a democracy. The founding fathers did not like democracies. We are a republic, and so we elect people to represent us. That's what the premise of the electoral college is: we vote for electors. The electors then vote the way the people of the state want them to.

So, by having an Electoral College, the entire country gets represented, not just the most populous areas. This was because of the great foresight of the founders of this country.

Further reading:

1. Conservative Tribune: Here's What The Media Won't Tell You About The Popular Vote

America is a republic, not a democracy

The founding fathers of the United States, the people who created and signed our founding documents -- the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence -- did not like democracies because they believed they lead to chaos. They didn't want the new nation to become chaotic over time, so they created a republic and not a democracy. 

The founding fathers did their homework, and knew democracies did not work.  W. Cleon Skousen, discussed this in his book "The 5000 Year Leap: Principles of Freedom 101," discussed this fact. He said: 

"There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislature or decision making processes of government. This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass-participation in the government of the city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny."

He said that while a democracy becomes "increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows," a republic "governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely."

So, a democracy demands the participation of all the people. A republic, according to founding father James Madison, "derives its power directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior."

Madison continued:  It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic."

Around the turn of the 19th century, progressives took the term republic hostage and started referring to their programs as democratic. They did this in order to make their agenda appear to be driven by the masses, as opposed to being created by a few people in an office. They did this to make their agenda appear more appealing to Americans. They did this to make their Marxist agenda appear democratic and American.

This was necessary, because Marxism, or fascism, or whatever you want to call it, had spread at the turn of the 19th century and had gained steam in Europe and the United States. It grew fast in many European nations, although was slow to grow in the U.S. due to the Constitution.The horrors of socialism were well known by Americans, and they did not want that here.

This was known by the progressives of the era, so they had to come up with a major public relations campaign to make their agenda appear less Marxist and more democratic. So, you see, they decided that what better strategy than simply to abscond the term democracy. Their writers were writing the history books and textbooks kids were reading in schools. So they simply decided to replace republic with democracy. 

A perfect example of this occurred in 1921 when Marxism fell out of favor in the U.S. due to what was happening in Europe. So anyone who wanted to implement progressive programs had to find a friendly way of referring to it. So this is exactly what happened.  Socialists in the U.S. started referring themselves as "The League for Industrial Democracy."  You see, this had a much more appealing taste than if they were true to their agenda and simply said "The League for Industrial Socialism." 

The long term consequence is that teachers and journalists started referring to the United States as a democracy. Younger generations of Americans grew up hearing democracy instead of republic. 

During WWI, Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, added to the confusion when he hailed, "Make the world safe for Democracy." 

I frequently hear people of various political affiliations referring to the U.S. as a democracy. I even did this once, and was corrected by a democrat. Recently I heard a democrat refer to the U.S. as a democracy, and I had to correct her. 

I think the only way to fix this problem is for teachers and journalists to start teaching about the founding intentions, and why the Constitution was written as it was. It was created in such a way so that, even after the founding fathers passed away, the country would continue to run strong. They believed a democracy would lead to chaos, and so they established a republic. 

The true meaning of the Statue of Liberty

It seems that many people misinterpret the true meaning of the Statue of Liberty. They believe it means that the U.S. wants the impoverished, the poorly educated, and the unfortunate of other nations because of the slogan that is implanted on the base of the statue: "Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses."

Rush Limbaugh loves educating people about truth of American history, truths that have have been twisted by the left leaning people who have been educating our children since the 1960s. He reminded us, mainly those of us who are young enough to have been hoodwinked by our modern educational system.

In fact, that saying was not what the original purpose of the statue was all about. In fact, the original intent of the statue was to give us your folks who are fleeing oppression and we will provide them with an opportunity at a free and successful life. We will give them the opportunity to provide a good life for themselves.

It appears that the "huddled masses" quote was misinterpreted a while back to mean that we want your down trodden, your poor, your unfortunate, your disadvantaged, your uneducated, and we will provide you with a free education, free health care, and allow you to become democrats.

Actually, Emma Lazarus wrote the "huddled masses" poem as part of a campaign to build the pedestal of the statue. The poem was called The New Colossus, and it was written in 1883, and not even inserted onto the pedestal of the statue until 1903 when it was engraved onto the base.

The poem was forgotten and not even a part of the celebration of the opening of the statue in 1883, and it was not until 1903 that it gained much attention outside the original contest to raise money.

In fact, the original intent of the statue had nothing to do with immigration, it had to do with freedom and liberty. France was thanking us for being the first nation ever to make the rulers of their country aware that freedom and liberty was possible. This is ultimately what lead to the French Revolution.

Of course the French Revolution failed because they fought for the rights of man (man as a single entity) while the founders of the U.S. fought for the rights of individual men (we all have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by anything other than the government).

The reason the statue was build had nothing to do with the Lazarus poem, and yet once again history was twisted so that one group of people who wanted to convince the children of the world the Statue of Liberty was all about immigration. This was all one big lie that was taught in schools since 1903. This was a distortion by the progressives to make you think America was willing to take anyone, from any place in the world or universe.

The truth is, the statue was a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. It was dedicated on October 28, 1886.

On July 1, 2010, Limbaugh said:

"In fact, we don't call it the statue of immigration, we call it the statue of liberty. Lady Liberty is stepping forward. She is meant to be carrying the torch of liberty from the United States to the rest of the world.She is meant to be carrying the torch of liberty from the United States to the rest of the world. The torch is not to light the way to the United States. It is to light the way to liberty to the rest of the world. Lady Liberty is carrying the light of liberty to the rest of the world. It is not a beacon for immigrants to get to this country because they’re tired, they’re poor, they’re huddled, hungry, or thirsty. And in the proceeding years, that is exactly what she did. And she offered her freedom to France and the rest of Europe, and those countries came up with their own form of freedom, and their own interpretation. That's what other countries do. We have a right to choose our own forms of freedom.

And yet none compare to that of the United States. None. We were the first to establish freedom, we were the first to sign anything like the Declaration of Independence, and we were the first to form a U.S. Constitution that was meant to protect the natural rights of men (it tells its government what it cannot do).

And yet, all these years later, the only people to grasp the true meaning of the original documents (Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution) and the Statue of Liberty are those sons and daughters of classical liberals, those who are now referred to as conservatives and libertarians. The rest of the world has their own skewered interpretation of the true meaning of what kind of freedom we have here in the United States.

Those who intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret the meaning of these great documents, or this great statue, are those who mean to change the United States to be something other than what the founders had intended.

Further reading:

• American Exceptionalism
• Natural rights of men
• Rush Limbaugh: It's the statue of liberty, not the statue of immigration
• Rush Limbaugh: The true history of the statue of liberty

What is fascism?

Fascism, commonly known as Marxism, is a form of government whereby the state is worshiped as a religion, and experts in the state make rules that attempt to prevent many of the flaws of men.

The police-state then enforces these laws, and the end result is an ideal world or euphoric world where everyone has a job with equal pay, and everyone has healthcare, and there is world peace.

Fascism is a movement that began around the turn of the 20th century, and it grew roots in nearly every western nation. What forms it took depended on what country it was formed in.

In most nations, there is no constitutional restraint against writing laws, and this empowered powerful men in certain nations to build powerful fascists governments. Examples include Stalin's Communism in Russia, Mussolini's Socialism in Italy, and Hitlers Naziism in Germany.

You also have to understand here that Nazism is National Socialism. Hitler decided who got healthcare and how much. Hitler decided who lived and who died. Hitler decided what programs were going to be formed, and he took money from the people to create them. He mesmerized the people with his Utopian agenda, and that is how he gained the support of the people. He did not tell them that, in the process of giving Hitler what he wanted, that they were signing away their freedom.

Under Hitler's appeal, his promise for a Fascist Utopia, that people lost total sight of reality  This is how they became so obedient. They were doing what they were told by their radical leaders. There was not an individual strain of thought, at a certain point. It was much more involved than that, but that's the gist of it. And it was all just another version of fascism.

But that can't happen in the United States.  Or, it couldn't happen, so long as the Constitution was respected. That's right! In the United States, the Constitution stood in the way of fascism, mainly because it was a document that told the state what it could not do.  For this reason, fascism had to take on a more gentle form.  This posed a problem for those who yearned to advance a fascist agenda.

In the U.S., progressives, which is the name they chose for themselves, quickly realized their agenda was unpopular.  So, in order to move their agenda forward, they had to take baby steps: they had to gradually, by way of assimilation, change minds.

One of the best ways of changing minds and inculcating change, so they learned, was by taking advantage of tragedies.  So when people lost their life savings during the Great Depression, they called on progressives to save the day.

Progressive experts in Washington, both republican and democrat, convinced the people that it as okay to surrender some of their personal liberties to the state for the benefit of society.  They convinced them by saying things like, "It's for your own good."

So the progressive movement took off, becoming the original fascist movement in the United States. Of course, power breeds arrogance, and arrogance breeds corruption.  The federal government went on an "it's for your own good" rampage, passing bill after bill after bill forcing people to cede their liberties to Uncle Sam.

This is what happened when the progressives managed to get into the White House during the election of 1912.  Woodrow Wilson was their man, although, if he would have lost, Teddy Roosevelt had an even more aggressive progressive agenda than Wilson.

Through Wilson, progressives were able to convince Americans that some laws were necessary to prevent bank failures and create jobs.  They convinced people it was necessary to enforce compliance with the state, and for a police state to arrest and jail anyone who spoke ill of the state cause.

They believed compliance to the state would create a more perfect union, sort of like the euphoria Christians talk about finding in the afterlife.  This euphoria was the ultimate goal of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler, and it was also the ultimate goal of Woodrow Wilson as well.

They had all created fascist governments that were unique to their respective states.  Yet they were, in fact, sister governments, all falling under the rubric term fascism.

It is in this way that we can fairly say that fascism gave birth to socialism, communism, Nazism, and progressivism.  We can also fairly say it gave birth to liberalism because liberalism is basically a racemic (watered down) form of progressivism. You might even call progressivism and liberalism neo-communism.

So, in this way, we can fairly say that fascism, communism, socialism, Nazism, progressivism, liberalism, statism, and even totalitarianism, are all sisters and are all one and the same form of government. They all propose to take from those who have and redistribute it to those who have not in an attempt to create a perfect, an ideal, world.

Things that are not inalienable rights

We hear a lot of talk about inalienable rights, those rights that cannot be taken away (also called natural rights of men). Yet there is also talk (as FDR once did with his 2nd Bill of Rights and as gay rights activists do) of other rights that are not inalienable and they refer to them as though they were.

Listed here are some things that are not inalienable rights:

1. A good job
2. A good IQ
3. Good health
4. Good vision
5. Retirement
6. Good genes
7. A good wife or husband
8. A good marriage
9. Handicap access
10. Social security
11. Green grass
12. To fit in
13. Virtues

14.  Gay marriage

These are not rights, although they are incentives to work hard and obtain a better life; although they are things that legislatures can give you and take away.

Unalienable rights are those rights you are born with, such as the right to air, food, shelter, choice, defend yourself, etc.

The thirty enumerated powers

In order to prevent the Federal government from getting too big, and therefore gaining too much influence over the people, the founding fathers created Article II Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives congress only 30 enumerated powers.

So, what are enumerated powers? They are those powers specifically delegated to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.  That means that Congress only has the right to rule on these 30 things.

Article II section 8 lists all of these powers:

1. To collect taxes in order to provide a common defense and general welfare of the people
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes
4. To establish an uinform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws regarding bankruptcies within the United States
5. To coin money, regulate the value therof, and fix the standard of weights and measures.
6. To provide punishment for counterfeiting the securities and Coin of the U.S.
7. To establish a post office and post roads
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
19. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws:and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
20. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
21. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
22. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
23. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
24. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
25. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
26. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
27. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
28. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
29. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…
30. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
31. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Basically, Article II Section 8 limits the power of government to just a few things, including: standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

These powers have obviously been loosely regarded by both Congress and the Supreme Court.  However, what is not listed here Congress has no legal authority to rule upon.  For all other issues Congress must refer to the 10th amendment: 

The 10th Amendment:  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

So by the law, the Congress has no right to make any laws regarding punishment except for the counterfeiting of money, treason, and impeachment.  All other laws regarding punishment, including murder and abortion, are reserved to the states, and therefore the people, to decide.

It was written this way to protect the rights of the states, and to limit the scope and power of the Federal government over the states. Another reason for this was to give states unlimited power, although they had limited funds to which to run government programs, as only the Federal government reserved the right to print money.

This system also allowed for the states to be risky with new programs, with other states copying the programs of other states that worked.  When a state's program failed, the other states would bail that state out.  If the Federal government failed, there would be on one, other than another country or group of countries (such as the United Nations) to bail it out. So this prevented the Federal government from taking unnecessary risk.

According to Kevin Price, "at renewamerica.com, "What are 'enumerated powers' and why do they matter, "The Founders of this republic believed in the dispersion of power. They did such in order to maximize individual freedom and to protect the power of the states. This unique system helped to limit the amount of money taxpayers spent on programs they disagreed with because on the federal level, all the enumerated powers were beneficial to all. Meanwhile, people had the power and freedom to move from state to state in order to find a government that best suited their needs. That power to "vote with their feet" kept most state government very small."

According to the Constitution, the Congress has no right to make any law regarding retirement, insurance, health, nor education, leaving these institutions up to the states, and therefore the people, to decide.

In other words, the size, scope and influence of the current government in the United States is illegal and must be scaled back.

Why do progressives hate the founding fathers?

Ever wonder why it is that progressives do not seem to like the founding fathers, and constantly try to diminish the founding documents?  Well, it's because the founding fathers were all conservative.

Now that we understand this, it's easy to see why progressives, or at least those who are pushing the progressive movement, say that the Constitution is a living document that must be changed and updated.  It is why they say the Declaration of Independence is dead.  It's why they ignore the Constitution to make into law what the people do not want, but what is essential to advance their agenda.  

A perfect example here is the fact that many progressives use Thomas Jefferson as a perfect example of a founding father who was an atheist who was for a large government.  

Why do progressives in the U.S. constantly say that Thomas Jefferson was for big government and that he wanted the Bible out of government?  Well, it's because he was really a conservative, and if people knew that they might want to become conservatives.  For this reason, they twist the truth to make Jefferson what they need him to be in order to advance their agenda.  

Neither of these are true, by the way.  Jefferson, although he may have been a deist, still understood the importance of God and the conservatism he preached. Jefferson, in essence, was for a limited government.  

Chuck Norris actually covered this topic in his April 13, 2014, column "Three myths about Thomas Jefferson."  He sites the following quote from Jefferson:

Jefferson was actually for smaller government, less debt and fewer taxes. About eight years after his two terms of president, Jefferson wrote, “We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”

Thomas Jefferson probably was a deist and not a Christian, although he also understood the importance of God in a functioning government. It is for this reason, in various letters to John Adams, he discussed why he thought it was important for a government to inculcate the values and morals taught through the Bible.

Jefferson wrote that he believed, that since the new nation could not afford a militia, that something else was needed to keep Americans in line.  Jefferson understood, perhaps by reading books from his own library, that fear of God and the Devil are all that is needed to encourage people to love and respect their neighbors.  That it was important for the government to encourage Bible study.

It is for this reason the founding fathers -- Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Adams, Madison, Franklin -- used God's name so frequently.  They understood, that in order to maintain a functioning society, God is essential.

Here is why progressives want to get rid of God in society?

In order to understand any argument for or against the Bible, there are only four elements you need to know: 

1. The Christian Bible teaches conservatism
2. The founding fathers were all conservatives
3. Conservatism is capitalism
4. Capitalism is individualism

Knowing this will help you understand why the Bible is essential to the conservative movement, and why the Bible is the antithesis of the progressive movement.  

For the sake of simplicity here, any movement that teaches that redistribution of wealth is essential for a functioning society is progressive.  So, therefore, all of the following movements are, in essence, progressive.

1. Liberal
2. Progressive
3. Socialist
4. Communist
5. Collectivism
6. Fascist
7. Totalitarian

So, for now on, for the sake of simplicity, I will simply refer to any of these as progressive.  Since the Bible teaches conservatism, it, therefore, is the enemy and must be eliminated.  

Now, with that understood, can tackle some of the greater questions, such as: 

• Why are progressives always trying to get rid of God in our lives? 
• Why do secularists care that non-secularists share God's word? 
• Why is it so important to get God out of schools? 
• Why can't we have Nativity scenes in public places? 
• Why did Stalin say getting rid of God was the most important part of advancing Communism?
• Why do progressives say Thomas Jefferson wanted a huge government

To answer these questions all you have to do is understand that the Bible teaches conservatism.  What is conservatism?  It's capitalism and individualism.  It's limited government and free choice.  It's personal responsibility and accountability.  It's values and virtues.  

Through His Bible, God teaches that those who believe, those who work hard, will reap the rewards of their crops.  That they can keep what they need to feed their families, and decide for themselves what to share with others.  The Bible teaches love, hope and charity, so people learn the importance of taking care of their neighbors. 

A good example of this is the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving. Progressives teach in schools that the first Thanksgiving was all about Thanking the Indians for helping the Pilgrims grow crops.  They teach this because if people knew the true story they fear they would become conservatives. 

Conservatives teach the complete, and true story.  They teach that the purpose of the first t thanksgiving was because the Pilgrims tried socialism for the first few years they were on American soil, and it failed. It failed because even those who did no work got the same amount of profit and the same amount of food on their tables. It failed because there was no incentive for people to work.

So the Pilgrims ultimately decided to try what the Bible preaches: hard work, i.e. capitalism. Under this new system, crops flourished. So after abundant crops were harvested that year, they decided to throw a huge party to offer thanks to God and his Bible; they wanted to thank got for teaching conservatism.  

Of course there were Indians there, Indians who taught the Pilgrims how to manage the land.  The Pilgrims appreciated the Indians and knew that God had sent them to help.  Yet thanking the Indians was not the only reason for the great celebration: the reason was to give thanks to the Lord, God. 

It's understandable that progressives would want to teach their own version.  It's essential to advance their agenda.  They know that in order to make the progressive movement look good they must tell their own version of history; they must lie. 

Since most kids are taught the progressive version of the first Thanksgiving, kids do not learn the failure of socialism and the success of capitalism.  They do not learn this great lesson.  Progressives do not want you to know that Progressivism has been tried again and again and again throughout history, and it has failed every time.  They do not want you to know that, so they rewrite history.  

Think about it.  This is exactly the same reason why communist nations do not allow people to do to church, because God teaches capitalism, the antithesis of communism.  This is why Stalin got rid of all the churches in Russia.  He knew that the lessons of capitalism taught in the Bible could not co-exist with communism; that you cannot have both.  

By understanding the four elements, you can also understand why progressives in the U.S. consistently talk bad about the founding fathers, and want to change the three original documents, all of which mention God. 

So, why is it that progressives work so hard, so adamantly, to prevent children from learning about God?  It's because what God teaches is conservatism, the antithesis of liberalism.