Are kids taught the whole story of American History?

Are our kids learning the truth about our founding in school? Sometimes I have to wonder. There are certain things that people do or say every day that make me wonder if they even have a clue about how and why this nation became what it is today. They don't seem to understand what makes this nation Exceptional.  

Here, I'll give you an example. On Monday Ted Cruse gave a speech announcing his candidacy for president. He talked about the Constitution and the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. The preamble, if you didn't learn it in school, goes like this: 

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.

So, basically this is an acknowledgement by the founders of our country, declaring independence from Britain, that human rights are bestowed by God via creation, that the natural state of the human being contains God-given rights. It forms the foundation of the founding of this country.

Evidence that this hasn't been taught is when people who do talk about it are mocked and ridiculed. A perfect example comes from a Tweet by Yahoo News journalist Meredith Shiner:

Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?"

Many people might miss this, especially if they hadn't been taught the true history of our founding. Yet to me this Tweet flat out shows that Shiner, a political reporter, was either not taught about the founding, or slept through that class. But, considering we see comments like this every day, I'm led to think it's simply not taught.

Surely history is taught, but things that don't support the progressive agenda are conveniently left out. Kids are simply not taught the true history of how our nation was founded. How else do you explain why people are so eager to sacrifice their liberties at the expense of moving forward their agenda? How else do you explain ignorant comments by adults who obviously graduated from American schools.

Just think of it this way. You have people like Shiner who are teaching our kids. You have people like this who are teaching adults. If all you do all day is read Yahoo News, then chances are pretty good you aren't going to learn about the true history of America. You're not going to learn it because the reporters teaching it have no clue. 

So when people who talk about the true nature of our founding the way Cruz did, people like Shiner look at them with dumbfounded expressions. Look, Shiner is a graduate of Duke University. She is well educated. But she is not well educated. This is sort of another example of how education does not make people smart, common sense does.

I would love to hear Shiner explain unalienable rights. I would like to see her reaction when I tell her that the idea that people are born with God-given rights is what separates our nation from all others. It's this idea that our Constitution was founded, and why it was written in a way to prevent our government from making any law that would "deny" these rights.

In the preamble only a few of the natural rights were listed. Jefferson didn't want to take up too much space listing them, so he wrote, "among these are..." This is because he knew that the other colonists knew what the other rights were. But, to make sure future generations didn't get confused, they listed all of them in the Bill of Rights.  (It is this truth that makes life so miserable for progressives who wish to advance their agenda, but that's a discussion for another day).

Yes, so our nation was founded on the belief that we are all born with God-given rights. No government can take these rights away, they can only be denied by government. Your right to make decisions you think are smart and some minority person in Washington thinks are stupid can be denied by a law -- but it can never be taken away from you. You can make whatever decision you want, even if it is denied. Of course if it's been denied, and you get caught, you might be punished.

I wonder if Shiner knows this. I wonder what her reaction would be to hearing this truth. She is totally clueless, and it's probably because the American School System failed her. She is probably one of many Americans taught in school that the government is better at solving problems than individuals. She is probably well educated about the theory of man-made global warming. She is probably well educated on political correctness.

She probably thinks, as too many Americans do these days, that her rights come from Washington; that everything she's allowed to do comes from the pen of man. She probably thinks that individuals need to be directed by experts in Washington. She probably thinks superior beings in Washington -- such as Duke or Harvard graduates -- need to act on our behalf to lead us in the right direction, which is whatever direction they think is right.

I wonder what Obama was taught about our history. I wonder what John Kerry was taught about our history. No, actually I don't wonder. I get a pretty good idea by listening to them talk that, even if they were privy to an accurate history, they weren't paying much attention.

The founding fathers risked everything so that Shiner could do what she does. Yet she has no clue. If such men existed today, she might think of them as extremists.

She probably thinks rights are whatever lawmakers say they are. But if that were the case, if this is what the founders thought, then this nation would not exist today. It would not be the same. Because, if that were the case, if rights came from the pen of man, the pen of man could take them away. If they are God-granted, then you always have them.

This reminds me of a story I heard once of a prisoner in a Japanese or German (I can't remember which) war camp during WWII. He was behind bars and had a gun aimed at his head, and he said to the guard, "I am more free than you right now." The enemy guard, laughed and said, "Now what would make you think that?" The U.S. prisoner said, "Because no matter what you do to me, I can still love my country."

Shiner probably wouldn't understand.

Just to make sure I am not off my rocker on this topic, I posted the following on Facebook knowing that some one would argue with me to prove my point. 

Too many kids get through the American educational system without being taught that this nation was formed based on the idea that human rights are bestowed by God via creation, and that the natural state of human beings contains God-given rights. My point is, the truth about our founding is not taught in many of those history books. So kids grow up not appreciating what American Exceptionalism really is

I received two quick responses, which included my nephew:

It's not the kids fault that we teach our kids the minimum requirements for a factory job and that we don't pay teachers enough to care as well as treat every student the same even tho every student is most definitely not the same, And standardized testing is just a joke.

And the whole "Merica" and "God" thing is just stupid.

And a cousin:

I'm confused. What do we need to teach kids about the founding fathers that we don't? 

This last one came with a link to Wikepedia: Separation of Church and State.

Yes, I do believe these comments help to prove my point: our government run school system is not doing a good job of teaching the truth about the founding of this country.  Our nation suffers as a result.

And you're welcome to disagree with me, although the consequence of doing so might prove me right

Further reading:

1. Newsbusters: Yahoo Political Reporter: Cruz Talking About God-Given Rights Is 'Bizarre'
2. RushLimbaugh.com: The Americans Who Risked Everything 
3. The decline of American History in Public Schools
4. What is American Exceptionalism
5. Transcript: Ted Cruse Speech at Liberty University
6. How do you define smart?

Gridlock is good

One of the best things about our U.S. Constitution is the separation of powers. Many will contend all this does is cause gridlock that prevents progress from being made, yet the founding fathers would say this is good.

Very few countries have a bicameral legislature and a separate executive. Most have an executive branch that is of the same party as the legislature, and there is rarely any gridlock. Laws that are written rarely have a problem getting passed.

That's not the case in the U.S. It's very difficult for a law to be passed by both house and the executive branch. The founders wanted this because they wanted to make sure minorities had protection. They wanted to make sure legislatures couldn't pass laws that were to the disadvantage of minorities. They wanted to make sure the majority could not easily vote away the rights of the minority.

If at the last minute someone thinks a law is a bad idea, it's not too hard to throw a wrench into it in the U.S. In other countries -- in most countries -- it's hard to stop bad laws from getting passed.

The founders made it this way because they wanted to make sure no bad laws got passed. They wanted to make sure laws made were good and benefited the masses for all time, as opposed to one group of people right now.

The 2014 midterm election results were a good example of how, while the media chants otherwise, most people in this country want gridlock.  Obama was handed an opportunity to make changes, and all he did was force legislature people didn't want, such as Obamacare.  So they voted republicans into office to create gridlock to stop him.

So, while you'll often hear people talking about how gridlock is bad, how it impedes progress, the truth is that gridlock can be a necessary good,  As the old saying goes, sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do something stupid.  It is better to play it safe than to risk the future.

Rights versus Privileges

Rights are things that you are born with. You do not get rights from the government. You get rights from birth. The only impact the government can have on rights is that the government can take rights away from you.

Every human is born with the same rights. We are all born with the right to speak, the right to defend ourselves, the right to arm ourselves, the right to a fair trial among our peers, a right to practice religion, etc. These are things we are born with.

This is what makes the U.S. Constitution unique, and one of the reasons it's the longest lasting Constitution, is because the founding fathers understood that rights are things we are born with. The Constitution was written as such that it would prevent the government from taking any action to take away these rights.

When the government gives you something, it's not a right, it's a privilege. For example, you have the privilege of driving a car, and handicap people have the privilege of ramps and larger bathrooms and such.  

In other words, a handicapped person has the natural right to speak out against the president.  He does not, however, have a natural right to use a ramp.  If he has a ramp this is not a right but a privilege.

When you hear a politician say he is fighting for handicap rights, you have proof of his ignorance. What he really meant to say was that he is for handicap privileges. This is true because handicapped Americans have the same rights as non-handicapped Americans.

You often hear about Gay rights and racial rights and so forth. The same principle applies here. Every human being in America has the same rights, and it doesn't matter what creed, color, race or sexual orientation. We are all equal and we should all be treated with equal respect.

Again, the U.S. Constitution understood this, and it portends to protect us from each other. The founders understood that my rights stop where your rights begin. In this sense, the U.S. constitution protects us from each other, not from ourselves.

Thus, the government does not have a right to tell you what you can eat, or what you have to buy (which is why people have a problem with Obamacare), or where you can live. You are born with a right to live as you wish, and the U.S. Constitution must protect this right. That is, so long as you're not infringing on someone else's right to live as he wishes.

You have a right to scream as loud as you want. Yet this right stops when you are infringing on your neighbor right to piece and quiet at night. You have a right to drive at any speed you want in your car, yet this right stops when your driving puts other people at risk.

So common sense applies. Put simply:

• Rights: Things you are born with
• Privilege: Things given to you by the government 

The next time someone says something like, "I'm fighting for the rights of union workers." You will know that union workers have the same rights as you and me. If anything, he's fighting for the privileges of union workers.

In this way, politicians twist words in order to make things sound better than they actually are. Rights are rights, and privileges are often treated by some to be rights when they are, well, just privileges.

Natural rights and duties of men

The founding fathers believed that the only way to have a just and stable society is for men to adapt the principles of Natural Law as set forth by Nature's God. So, what are natural rights.

Natural Rights: This is a basic code of laws that provides each person, at birth, certain rights that cannot be taken away but by other people by the governments they create. Natural rights are referred to as unalienable rights by the founding fathers, in that these are rights that cannot be taken away by the U.S. Constitution. This is one of the main reasons the U.S. Constitution has lasted longer than any other current Constitution.

The following are all examples of natural rights:

1. Unalienable rights: The Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The other unmentioned (and thus assumed) natural rights are as follows:

1. The right of self government
2. The right to bear arms for self defense
3. The right to own, develop, and dispose of property
4. The right to make personal choices
5. The right of free conscience
6. The right to chose a profession
7. The right to choose a mate
8. The right to beget one's kind
9. The right to assemble
10. The right to petition
11. The right to free speech
12. The right to a free press
13. The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor
14. The right to improve one's position through barter and sale
15. The right to contrive and invent
16. The right to explore natural resources of the earth
17. The right of privacy
18. The right to provide personal security
19. The right to provide nature's necessities -- air, food, water, clothing, and shelter
20. The right to a fair trial
21. The right of free association
22. The right to contract

2. Unalienable duties: Duties that are expected of all of us, but are not written into laws, and are probably inculcated through religious organizations.

1. The duty to honor God
2. The duty not to kill another person
3. The duty not to steal
4. The duty not to destroy the property of another person
5. The duty to be honest
6. The duty to honor thy parents
7. The duty to honor thy children
8. The duty to take care of the elderly
9. The duty to take care of children (feed, cloth, etc.)
10. The duty to respect the law in order to keep the peace
11. The duty to help the helpless (sick, poor, injured, elderly, etc.)
12. The duty to take care of yourself and not be dependent on others for self security
13. The duty to take responsibility for your own actions (you have a right to succeed and to fail)
14. The duty to keep your family together
15. The duty to treat all people with equal respect
16. The duty to vote and represent your government when called upon in an honest fashion
17. The duty to stay informed
18. The duty not to participate in criminal activities (to be honest)
19. The duty to be decent and clean
20. The duty to abide by the laws of nature3. Habeas corpus: Latin for "You have the body." It means you cannot be held unlawfully by the government. A writ of habeas corpus is permission to obtain someone who is believed to be guilty.

3.  Habeas corpus: Latin for "You have the body." It means you cannot be held unlawfully by the government. A writ of habeas corpus is permission to obtain someone who is believed to be guilty.

4. Limited government: The right not to have too many rules that take away our natural rights

5. Separation of powers: The political authority of the state is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers. To most effectively promote liberty, these three powers must be separate and acting independently. It refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. 

6. Checks and balances:With checks and balances, each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others. This way, no one branch becomes too powerful (i.e. no president can become king-like and do whatever he wants without regard to the natural rights of the people).

7. Right to self preservation: A second amendment right to defend yourself and your family under the auspices of the law. This being necessary for the security of a free state. If the government isn't doing its job of protecting you, you have a right to protect yourself.

8. Laws protecting the institution of marriage: The right to protect the sanctitiy of marriage as between a man and a woman.

9. No taxation without representation: The right to be represented by the dollars that are put forth through taxation. No money taken from you will go to programs that do not benefit you in some way, i.e. to create roads and security.

FDRs Second Bill of Rights

FDR was irritated with the Supreme Court for finding some of his programs unconstitutional, so he threatened to stack the Supreme court with liberal judges and he threatened a 2nd Bill of rights. He hated the separation of powers. He wanted to be a totolitarian dictator and force socialism on the nation in the name of social justice.

He did not like the Supreme Court overruling ideas and programs he decided should be enacted for our own good. And therefore he opted to change the Constitution itself.

Thankfully he failed at both efforts. If he would have succeeded, he would have had king-like powers, and he would have made the U.S. a socialistic nation.

Here is FDRs 2nd Bill of Rights:

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
4. The right of every business man large and small to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad
5. The right of every family to a decent home
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
7. The right to adequate protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployemnt
8. The right to a good education

None of these are inalienable rights.  These are not rights. These are attempts to create socialism. These are attempts to create the progressive ideal world, the same ideal world Stalin, Mussoline and Hitler tried to create and failed.

FDRs Second Bill of Rights was socialism in disguise.

Without life there is no liberty; without liberty there is no life

The reason I don't go to Facebook much is because it gets frustrating all the stupid stuff that people put on there.  What I hate most is when people put stuff on that shows that they have never read the Constitution.

Recently a person posted this:

One failed attempt at a show bomb, and we all take off our shoes at the airport.  Thirty one school shootings since Columbine, and no change in the regulation of guns."  John Oliver

The problem with that statement is that it's against the law to use your natural rights to take away the natural rights of others.  It's illegal to kill people.  It's not illegal to own a gun.

In this way, the only way you could succeed at making a law banning the sale of guns would be to change the Constitution.  And the whole intent of the Constitution was to make it to the U.S. Government could not make a law taking away natural rights.  Since defending yourself is a natural right, the Constitution is rock solid in this regard.

Natural rights never change, and for that reason the Constitution should never change. If you want to prevent events like Columbine, you teach people the values of the Bible, which teaches one to "love and respect thy neighbor."

I'm not implying that any person needs to own a machine gun, let alone two. However, no democratic society should be able to vote away the rights of other people, let alone take away the life other people.  Taking away one will not solve the other.

Or, worded another way: without life there is no liberty, but without liberty there is no life.  Leave my life alone, and leave my liberties alone.

For 99.9% of history governments abducted from the populace the ability to enjoy natural rights and freedoms.  We had best not forget this and start passing laws based on emotion, because every law passed takes away another freedom.

Rand Paul: defending natural rights

Rand Paul's main efforts in Congress is to protect natural rights. 

As we are researching the candidates most qualified to run for President of the United States during the 2016 election cycle, we must get away from party ideology and consider a person most likely to protect and defend the natural rights of men, and therefore the U.S. Constitution.

I think that both major parties (that's republicans and democrats for those who don't pay attention) have gotten away from the ideals that this country was founded upon.  They have forgotten that prior to the formation of the U.S. 99.9 percent of all nations were ruled by kings, queens, and totalitarian dictators who ruled based on their own best interests without regard to the natural rights of the people.  

Doesn't he look so Presidential? 

The founding fathers, by creating the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, aimed to prevent those in power in the U.S. from making any law that would take away these natural rights.  In this way, the U.S. became the first truly free nation, with all the founding documents aimed at protecting this freedom.  

So what happens when republicans are in power and choose to make laws telling people they cannot have abortions?  And what happens when democrats get into power and choose to make laws telling people what they can or cannot buy or eat? What happens is the founding documents are ignored, and natural rights are taken away for selfish gain.  

It is for this reason, that when considering any candidate for president during the 2016 election cycle, we must consider only those candidates, regardless of party, who petition to protect and defend the founding documents.  All candidates have good and bad ideas, but no candidate must force his ideas on the people without regard to the rule of law.  

While this is in no way an endorsement, especially considering no candidate has yet to announce he or she is running, I think that Rand Paul is an early favorite in this category.  Interestingly enough, other Americans must be thinking along these same lines, considering Paul is currently the republican front runner.

Further reading:

• Rand Paul Rocks the house at CPAC 
• Seeks 50 state network, courts mainstream support
• Some libertarians say Paul may run into trouble by his own libertarianism
• Ryan's immigration reform proposal