Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘thomas jefferson’

America’s Founders Didn’t Support Open Borders, And Neither Should We

BY: HELEN RALEIGH | MAY 10, 2023

Author Helen Raleigh profile

HELEN RALEIGH

VISIT ON TWITTER@HRALEIGHSPEAKS

There is little evidence that the founders advocated for a free-for-all, open-door immigration policy.

From the very beginning, even in the absence of immigration law, the founders knew America had to set boundaries. Their top three concerns were the qualifications, assimilation, and allegiance of newcomers. The founders emphasized the moral character and contributions newcomers would bring.

Not only should new migrants have good moral character, but they should also place “high importance to the respectability and character of the American name” and do their best to “preserve its good fame from injury,” as Rep. James Jackson, a Democratic-Republican from Georgia, said in 1790. The founding generation didn’t want convicts and criminals as new immigrants.

George Washington preferred skilled new immigrants, such as “useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” James Madison wanted the “worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us,” so they can “increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”

How can a new immigrant increase the wealth and strength of a community? Rep. John Laurance clarified:

Every person who comes among us must do one or the other; if he brings money, or other property with him, he evidently increases the general mass of wealth, and if he brings an able body, his labor will be productive of national wealth, and an addition to our domestic strength. Consequently, every person, rich or poor, must add to our wealth and strength, in a greater or less degree.

Assimilation Strengthens and Protects

The United States was founded upon specific ideas and moral principles, as expressed by the eloquent words of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson believed that “it is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together.”

He feared that if new immigrants believed different ideas, then “with their language, they will transmit [them] to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

Benjamin Franklin shared Jefferson’s concerns. Some people today accuse Benjamin Franklin of being anti-immigration because of the disparaging words he said about German immigrants. In fact, Franklin was anything but opposed to immigration. He published the first German newspaper in America, the Philadelphische Zeitung, in 1732. Franklin was not against immigration; he was concerned that a lack of assimilation would be harmful to immigrants’ happiness and damning to the unity and longevity of the republic.

George Washington expressed a similar concern: that immigration does not benefit America when immigrants congregate and “retain their language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

Instead, he firmly believed that new immigrants or their descendants should, “by an intermixture with our people … get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”

Immigrants Must Pledge Allegiance

No matter what drives them to America, some immigrants retain residual loyalty to their countries and cultures of birth. To become Americans, the founders believed immigrants needed to give up prior allegiances and pledge an oath of fidelity to the U.S. In Alexander Hamilton’s words:

The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

John Quincy Adams, in an 1819 letter to Moritz von Furstenwarther, a German citizen who was considering moving to the U.S. and had asked Adams for a job, stated that the U.S. is a land “not of privileges, but of equal rights.” Thus, Adams warned Furstenwarther that new immigrants like him:

Must cast off the European skin, never to resume it. They must look forward to their posterity, rather than backward to their ancestors; they must be sure that whatever their own feelings may be, those of their children will cling to the prejudices of this country, and will partake of that proud spirit.

Citizenship Isn’t Cheap

While some founders believed an oath of allegiance and a declaration to stay in America were sufficient for citizenship, others did not want to give out citizenship too cheaply.

They pointed out that some foreign sailors had voted in Philadelphia’s assembly elections after taking oaths of allegiance and then left America, having never intended to stay. This kind of practice not only results in election fraud but also threatens the “safety of a republic” because a foreigner who rejects American principles and ideas would vote against them.

Therefore, some founders thought “some security for their [immigrants’] fidelity and allegiance was requisite besides the bare oath.” The additional security the founders sought was property ownership or residency.

Property ownership has been used to distinguish citizens from aliens since the Roman Empire. Some founders wanted to “see the title of a citizen of America as highly venerated and respected as was that of a citizen of old Rome.”

During the House of Representatives debate on immigration law in Philadelphia in 1790, the majority of the founders regarded it as essential that an individual have a period of residency in the U.S. prior to gaining citizenship. Residency achieved two purposes, according to Rep. Michael Stone:

First, that he should have an opportunity of knowing the circumstances of our Government, and in consequence thereof, shall have admitted the truth of the principles we hold. Second, that he shall have acquired a taste for this kind of Government. And in order that both these things may take place, in such a full manner as to make him worthy of admission into our society.

Founders extensively debated how long residency should be. Some suggested two years, while others suggested five years or even longer. But all agreed the residency requirement should be long enough to “give a man an opportunity of esteeming the Government from knowing its intrinsic value,” which “was essentially necessary to assure us of a man’s becoming a good citizen.”

Hamilton, the most famous immigrant to America, opposed limiting any congressional office to either native-born Americans or immigrants who met the residency requirement. People suspected later that he was trying to make himself eligible for the U.S. presidency.

Hamilton’s actual argument at the Constitutional Convention showed he was more concerned about ordinary immigrants. He pointed out, “Persons in Europe of moderate fortunes will be fond of coming here, where they will be on a level with the first citizens. I move that the section be so altered as to require merely citizenship and inhabitancy.”

The majority overruled Hamilton’s proposal by requiring future U.S. House Representatives to meet a seven-year residency requirement, U.S. senators a nine-year residency, and presidents a 14-year residency.

Helen Raleigh, CFA, is an American entrepreneur, writer, and speaker. She’s a senior contributor at The Federalist. Her writings appear in other national media, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Helen is the author of several books, including “Confucius Never Said” and “Backlash: How Communist China’s Aggression Has Backfired.” Her latest book is the 2nd edition of “The Broken Welcome Mat: America’s UnAmerican immigration policy, and how we should fix it.” Follow her on Parler and Twitter: @HRaleighspeaks.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Was Thomas Jefferson On The Duke Lacrosse Team?

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 03, 2019 6:15 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2019/07/03/was-thomas-jefferson-on-the-duke-lacrosse-team—p–n2549523

While tearing down everything that’s great about our country, the left has always permitted us to celebrate patriotic holidays. But this year, on the week that we commemorate the unveiling of the Declaration of Independence, Nike yanked a Betsy Ross tribute sneaker off the market because the American flag didn’t sit well with Colin Kaepernick.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is telling wild, provable lies about America’s border agents.

This Fourth of July, let’s look at the tactics used by the left to blacken the reputations of American heroes. To wit, the lie that the principal author of the declaration, Thomas Jefferson, fathered a child with his slave, Sally Hemings.

The charge was first leveled in 1802 by a muckraking, racist, alcoholic journalist, James Callender, who had served prison time for his particular brand of journalism. He had tried to blackmail Jefferson into appointing him postmaster at Richmond. When that failed, Callender retaliated by publicly accusing Jefferson of fathering the first-born son of Sally Hemings — or, as the charming Callender described her, “a slut as common as the pavement.”

No serious historian ever believed Callender’s defamation — not Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson, Douglass Adair or John Chester Miller. Not one. Their reasoning was that there was absolutely no evidence to support the theory and plenty to contradict it.

The Jefferson-Hemings myth was revived by feminists trying to elevate the role of women in history. Modern pedagogy requires that no period of our past be taught without turning it into a lecture on racism, sexism or homophobia.

Fawn M. Brodie got the ball rolling with her 1974 book, “Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History,” which used Freudian analysis to prove Jefferson kept Hemings as his concubine and fathered all six of her children.

Brodie’s book was followed by Barbara Chase-Riboud’s 1979 novel “Sally Hemings,” a work that imagines Hemings’ interior life. When CBS announced plans to make a miniseries out of the novel, Jefferson scholars exploded, denouncing the project as a preposterous lie. The miniseries was canceled.

Finally, a female law professor, Annette Gordon-Reed, wrote “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy,” which accused professional historians of racism for refusing to defer to the “oral history” of Hemings’ descendants.

She said “racism,” so the historians shut up.

In 1998, a retired pathologist, Dr. Eugene Foster, performed a DNA test on the Y-chromosomes of living male descendants of Sally Hemings, as well as those from Jefferson’s paternal uncle. The Y-chromosome is passed from male to male, so, if the story were true, Hemings’ male descendants ought to have the Y-chromosome of the Jefferson male bloodline.

Foster’s study did establish that Hemings’ last-born son, Eston, was the son of some Jefferson male, but could not possibly say whether that was Thomas Jefferson or any of the other 25 adult male Jeffersons living in Virginia at the time, eight of them at or near Monticello.

For Eston to be Jefferson’s son, we have to believe that five years after being falsely accused of fathering a child with Hemings, Jefferson decided, What the heck? I may be president of the United States, but I should prove Callender’s slander true by fathering a child with my slave!

It would be as if five years after the Duke lacrosse hoax, one of the falsely accused players went out and actually raped a stripper — in fact, the same stripper.

Nonetheless, Nature magazine titled its article on the study “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child.” Hundreds of newspapers rushed to print with the lie, e.g.:

“Study: Jefferson, Slave Had Baby” — Associated Press Online, Nov. 1, 1998

“DNA Study Shows Jefferson Fathered His Slave’s Child” — Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1998

“Jefferson Exposed” — Boston Globe, Nov. 3, 1998

Two months after these false “findings” had been broadcast from every news outlet where English is spoken, Foster admitted that the DNA had not proved Jefferson fathered any children by Sally Hemings, merely that he could have fathered one child. Only eight newspapers mentioned the retraction.

The science alone puts the odds of Thomas Jefferson fathering Eston at less than 15% — less than 4%, if all living Jefferson males are considered, not just the ones at Monticello.

All other known facts about Jefferson make it far less probable still.

There are no letters, diaries or records supporting the idea that Jefferson was intimate with Hemings, and quite a bit of written documentation to refute it, including Jefferson’s views on miscegenation and his failure to free Hemings in his will, despite freeing several other slaves.

In private letters, Jefferson denounced Callender’s claim — a denial made more credible by his admission to a sexual indiscretion that would have been more shameful at the time: his youthful seduction of a friend’s wife.

None of the private correspondence from anyone else living at Monticello credited the Hemings rumor, though several pointed to other likely suspects — specifically Jefferson’s brother, Randolph.

Eston was born in 1808, when Thomas Jefferson was 64 years old and in his second term as president. His brother Randolph was 52, and Randolph’s five sons were 17 to 24 years old. All of them were frequent visitors at Monticello.

While Jefferson was busy entertaining international visitors in the main house, Randolph would generally retire to the slave quarters to dance and fiddle. One slave, Isaac Granger Jefferson, described Randolph in his dictated memoirs thus: “Old Master’s brother, Mass Randall, was a mighty simple man: used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night.”

There is not a single account of Thomas Jefferson frequenting slave quarters. Nor did Jefferson take any interest in Hemings’ children. Randolph did, teaching all of Hemings’ sons to play the fiddle.

Randolph was an unmarried widower when Eston was conceived. After Randolph remarried, Hemings had no more children.

In response to DNA proof that only one of Hemings’ children was related to any Jefferson male — and her firstborn son was definitely NOT fathered by any Jefferson — the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the Monticello Association and the National Genealogical Society promptly announced their official positions: Thomas Jefferson fathered all six of Hemings’ children! Guided tours of Monticello today include the provably false information that Jefferson fathered all of Hemings’ children.

So now you, at least, know the truth — not that it matters in the slightest. Happy Fourth of July!

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

This Physical Education Textbook Chapter on ‘Riflery’ will Blow a Liberal’s Mind

By Gary DeMar July 19, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/physical-education-textbook-chapter-riflery-will-blow-liberals-mind/

What’s happened in America with guns? Why is it that tens of thousands of high school students took riflery classes for decades and there was very little gun violence in the United States?

I came across a Physical Education textbook that included chapters on riflery and archery – implements that shoot pointy projectiles.

PE_Rifle_Cover The book Physical Education for High School Students was originally published in 1955 with a revised edition in 1960 and a second edition published in 1970.

Here’s the opening paragraph from the chapter on “Riflery”:

“The United States of America was built, it is said, with three implements: the axe, the plow, and the rifle. The axe, in the hands of the stalwart pioneer, felled trees to clear the way for fields of grain. It also provided timber to build the houses, barns, and fences of our farms. The plow cut into the virgin soil of our foothills, plains, and prairies to grow the food for a young and hungry country. The rifle brought down the deer, bear, and other game to give the hardy frontiersman and his family food and clothing. It also stood as the only means of defense against his enemies, both savage and civilized.”

Throughout the chapter on Riflery there are very good instructions on how to use a rifle properly and safely. There’s even a picture of an “assault weapon.”

PE_Rifle_03

The chapter ends by declaring “Shooting is probably the safest of all sports. . . . By practicing a few simple rules every shooter can become a safe shooter.” This next sentence will make a liberal’s head explode: “One of the greatest sources of pride for the National Rifle Association is the splendid record in the safe handling of firearms set by their junior members.” The NRA is praised by a public school textbook!

The issue is not only the safe handling of firearms but the character of the person handling a firearm. Moral relativism is the operational worldview of the day. Everything is up for grabs. It’s OK to kill unborn babies, redefine marriage, and even change your sex. In fact, you don’t even have to change your sex; you can just declare yourself to be whatever sex you want. It’s topsy-turvy morality, and if you say so, then you’re a racist and a homophobe who does not have the right to express your opinion.

Bill Nye “The Science Guy” and resident Village Atheist recently said that death is the end of everything. This means there is no Ultimate Judge of our deeds in this life. So what is the moral objection to killing someone? Who says anything is ultimately morally wrong? No atheist can account for objective morality.

There was a time when people believed that one day they would be judged for the deeds done in this life. God was considered to be “the Supreme Judge of the world.” Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse Monticello in 1822:

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.

2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

Not anymore. Even the views of Thomas “Separation of Church and State” Jefferson would not be welcome in our nation’s government schools. Evolutionary atheism is the operating religion of our nation’s elites and the institutions they control. This new religion promotes “survival of the fittest,” “nature, red in tooth and claw,” with the benefits of rape thrown in for good progressive measure.

Evolutionary atheism is the operating religion of our nation’s elites and the institutions they control. This new religion promotes “survival of the fittest,” “nature, red in tooth and claw,” with the benefits of rape thrown in for good progressive measure. Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Barbara Reynolds, former columnist for USA Today, writes about the effect of evolutionary dogmatism in our nation’s schools:

“Prohibiting the teaching of creationism in favor of evolution creates an atheistic, belligerent tone that might explain why our kids sometimes perform like Godzilla instead of children made in the image of God.

“While evolution teaches that we are accidents or freaks of nature, creationism shows humankind as the offspring of a divine Creator. There are rules to follow which govern not only our time on Earth, but also our afterlife.

* * * * *

“If evolution is forced on our kids, we shouldn’t be perplexed when they beat on their chests or, worse yet, beat on each other and their teachers.”¹

Reynolds’s comments are reminiscent of what C.S. Lewis wrote: “We make men without chests and we expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and we are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”² We strip men and women of the certainty that they are created in the image of God, and we are surprised when they act like the beasts of the field.

Barbara Reynolds, “If your kids go ape in school, you’ll know why,” USA Today (August 27, 1993), 11A. ↩
C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan, [1947] 1972), 35. ↩

fight true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Commentary: America is Spiritually, Morally, and Financially Bankrupt

Commentary By Pamela Adams April 2, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/ben-franklin-right-america-spiritually-morally-financially-bankrupt

Benjamin Franklin once said, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”

The Democratic Party has two candidates who are falling all over themselves trying to outdo the other in making people “easy” or comfortable in their poverty. Candidates Sen. Bernard Sanders and Hillary Clinton both want to prove that they are the one willing to give away more free stuff:

free college,
free rent,
free phones,
free abortions,
free birth control,
free healthcare,
free food.

You don’t need to work or even try to become successful. The government will take care of you. The only thing that neither wants free is the American people or their speech.

That being said, the GOP race evidences another aspect of Franklin’s quote. Americans are not just comfortable in their monetary poverty, they are also equally comfortable in their spiritual poverty. On Good Friday, the National Enquire ran a story ‘claiming’ candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) – R allegedly had affairs with five women. Anyone bothering to read the article realized it was written as a defense lawyer’s dream. It was filled with “allegedly”, “claimed”, “supposedly” and other such words that mean, “You can’t sue us because we didn’t actually accuse anybody of anything.” It is essentially a page out of CBS News’ National Guard story against George W. Bush that was completely based on fake documents, but that didn’t matter. The story itself was too important.

However, it’s not the fact that a hit piece was used. Such things are expected in elections. What’s troubling is the public’s reaction to it. The best example is Michelle Collins of “The View,” who giddily admitted she hoped this scandal was true, because Cruz lives by a “crazy moral code.” She wants to see a man like that fall.

Another co-host, Candace Cameron Bure, a devout, unapologetic Christian, called Collins out on her statement, rightfully pointing out that Ted Cruz (TX) – R’s so-called “crazy moral code” is actually a biblical lifestyle. Though Collins relented to that fact, she continued to ramble on about wanting to see him fail because “he’s not a good guy.”

Why does she think he’s not a good guy? Because he believes life begins at conception and that he doesn’t think taxpayer money should fund the abortion clinics known as Planned Parenthood? Or is it because he believes in traditional marriage and Christian business owners shouldn’t be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding? Maybe it’s just because he believes in the Constitution and that States have more rights than the federal government. Trump has said many times he would stop such attacks on Christians. If that is the case, this attack on Christian values should offend his supporters even if they dislike Cruz. In a similar fashion, the Black Lives Matters protesters at Trump rallies who intentionally attempt to paint him and his supporters in a bad light should equally offend non-Trump supporters.

We have gone from a people who rightly looked up to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, not because they were perfect men, but because they tried to be honorable, virtuous men. They sacrificed everything for liberty and freedom for all posterity. But America is now so incredibly comfortable in our spiritual poverty that people are actually delighting in the fact that Cruz could be destroyed by what appears to be a completely false story because it damages a faithful Christian. Are we so morally void of any decency that, as many have said, they actually don’t care whether it’s true as long as it destroys Cruz while completely dismissing what it does to Heidi Cruz, her girls, the five suspected women and their families?

Since the time of Woodrow Wilson and the progressive war on America started discrediting Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin, we have crushed our moral compass and discarded our national role models. Resulting is our comfort in our ethical poverty including coveting, greed, pre-marital sex, abortion, divorce, open affairs, lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, gossiping, and bearing false witness. In our enlightened world, we can openly violate the Ten Commandments as long as it gets us ahead. We have become so comfortable and lazy in our spiritual poverty we jump on Twitter to call people “bitch”, “whore”, “slut”, “stupid”, threaten and delight in the thought of a gang rape. We are becoming morally bankrupt towards others simply because they hold a difference of opinion or support another candidate.

2016 Americans name-calling and election-time mudslinging is nothing new in American politics. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had just as nasty of a campaign as we are seeing today. But there was one big difference. The insults of the 1800 election were hurled through articles written by Adams and Jefferson themselves with a few willing newspaper participants. Today we are barraged with a 24-7 news cycle, talk radio, “The View,” podcasts and Twitter. Rather than watching the back and forth of two candidates trying to out maneuver the other, we as a population are throwing verbal assaults at each other and refusing to find common ground.

For a population that has felt crushed under the foot of Obama and political correctness, Trump has given people the feeling of freedom to say whatever they want. At the same time, the anonymity of the Internet has given us the protection to attack anyone with a differing opinion. It is liberating. But in a civil society we need to function under our own personal moral compass or we fall under the weight of our own depravity. As it says in 1 Corinthians 10:23: “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is edifying.

Adams supporters and Jefferson supporters were able to come together after the election because the insults lobbed were between the two candidates, not the common man. How are we as a people going to unite after a year of personal insults, personal attacks, and personal threats against each other? Some hurling those insults openly profess they don’t want to unite, often saying, “We don’t need you anyway,” and “Get out of the way or get run over.” America, we are in real trouble and unless we enrich ourselves spiritually, or at least morally, it doesn’t matter who becomes president, Clinton, Cruz, Sanders or Trump, we are done as a free republic. We will require a dictator because we will become so uncivilized that society will demand someone come in and put a boot on the neck of those who can’t control themselves.

As Franklin warned, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Is it possible for Trump and Cruz supporters to be civil with each other when we both claim we want to disrupt the establishment, stop ISIS, end illegal immigration, stop refugees, strengthen the economy, and limit the reach of the government? We share common wants and beliefs. Why can’t we share common civility? If we can’t, we will share a common poverty, both in spirit and in the wallet, under Commandant Clinton or Bernard Sanders.

But that’s just my 2 cents.

Category:

Opinion, Political

Tagged with:

What Would the Founders Think of the 2016 Election? Not so Much Different from 1800.

By Pamela Adams March 28, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/6512-2

Accusations of sexual misconduct. Choruses of liar, dirty tricks, coward and dictator. Warnings of war. Allegations of ineligibility. Using sympathetic media to not only cushion a candidacy but to spread propaganda about opponents.

What would our Founding Fathers think of this behavior? Well, since this is describing the 1800 campaign between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, they must have considered it business as usual.

Election-of-1800

During this highly political and dirty campaign, many citizens thought their very young country would not survive such a vicious display between presidential candidates. Two men that just 24 years earlier stood together against England and composed the Declaration of Independence, were now at war with each other. The past four years they were the two highest elected officials in this new country; President Adams, a big government Federalist, and Vice-President Jefferson, a small government Democratic-Republican. Now, they were the worst of enemies.

Adams supporters suggested, “we would see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution,” and “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced,” if Jefferson were elected.

Jefferson people responded in kind, calling Adams a liar, a “repulsive pedant”, and a “gross hypocrite”. Going even further, Adams was described as behaving “neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character.” That’s being born with both male and female sex organs, folks.

After the election was held and Jefferson was victorious, another problematic issue arose. Both Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr had received 73 electoral votes each. At the time, there was not a distinction between votes for President and for Vice-President. It was strictly majority wins. While the issue was rectified with the 12th Amendment in 1804, this election went to the House of Representatives, which at the time was still full of lame-duck Federalists to break the tie.

Alexander Hamilton, who vehemently despised Burr, led the charge to convince House members Jefferson would be the lesser of two evils. Burr lost favor with Jefferson as well as he started actively trying to steal the Presidency after running as Jefferson’s VP. Jefferson eventually won the House election and Burr received the Vice-Presidency, largely due to Hamilton’s involvement. The two continued feuding on both personal and political issues until July 11, 1804, when Burr challenged Hamilton to a dual and shot him. Burr was never prosecuted even though Hamilton died the next day. He apparently could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not loose support.

Things were not much better during the re-election campaign of President John Quincy Adams against Andrew Jackson. Jackson’s wife, Rachel Donelson, had been married to Lewis Robart, an abusive and obsessively jealous man. After finally leaving him, Rachel was told Lewis had divorced her. In truth, he had just petitioned the State of Kentucky for a divorce on the grounds of desertion. Rachel and Jackson then married only to discover Lewis never followed through with the divorce. Once Lewis discovered she remarried, he did obtain an official divorce and Jackson and Rachel quietly remarried.

Though the mixup was understood by friends and family, political opponents used it as a way to paint Jackson as an adulterer and Rachel as a bigamist. Imagine what they would have done with a candidate who openly bragged about his affairs with married women. A strong, Christian woman, Rachel was completely dismayed by the slander. The trumped up scandal took it’s toll on Rachel and shortly after Jackson was elected, she suffered a severe heart attack. She died before he was inaugurated.

The only thing more disgusting than the ugliness of politics is the disingenuous behavior of the media. They pit the candidates against each other, asking questions designed specifically to cause attacks against each other, and then act appalled when the mud starts flying. “Tell us how disgusting your opponent is,” followed by “I can’t believe what you just said about your opponent.” Ted Cruz exposed this in the first debate by calling the moderators out, repeating one-by-one their agenda driving questions. He ended by reminding them, “This is not a cage match.”

It’s no wonder the Main Steam Media has lost its relevance in the world and more and more people are turning to sites like this one for their news. They are drug dealers who give free drugs to get people hooked, and then criticize and demean the addict for wanting and needing a fix.

The Democratic-Republican Party eventually split in the late 1820’s. One group followed Andrew Jackson and formed the Democratic Party. The other group followed John Quincy Adams and formed the National Republican Party, which soon evolved into the Whig Party. Around the same time, the Federalist Party completely dissolved as well with its members also integrating into the two newly formed parties.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson eventually mended their broken relationship and spent years engaging in a friendly correspondence until their deaths. The two men both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, each feeling outwitted by the other for being outlived, as neither knew of the other’s death.

As a good majority of us cringe with every ugly assault lobbed this primary season, even our Founding Fathers stumbled into the same pit of degradation we are today.

Even so, I’d rather be there than in a dictatorial, authoritarian or fascist system where we don’t have the freedom to voice our objections. How we emerge at the end of this cycle, I don’t know, but in 1800 the two political parties died within 30 years. I would say most American’s, both Republicans and Democrats, would be pretty ok with that today. Maybe we’re just ripping off the bandaid, enduring short-term pain by exposing the wound, so we can begin healing once the sting is gone. At least, that’s what I’m praying for.

But that’s just my 2 cents.

Pamela Adams

Pamela J. Adams maintains TheFactsPaper.com which includes her blog Liberty Letters. She is a stay-at-home mom who began researching history, science, religion, and current events to prepare for home schooling. She started Liberty Letters as short lessons for her daughter and publishes them for everyone’s benefit. Pamela has a Degree in Mathematics and was in the workforce for 20 years as a teacher, Marketing Director, Manager and Administrative Assistant. You can contact her through her website or follow her Liberty Letters accounts at Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr.

Die true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

OUCH: Does THIS Thomas Jefferson Quote Apply To Cruz AND Trump?

Published on March 26, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/03/ouch-does-this-thomas-jefferson-quote-apply-to-cruz-and-trump

qmeme_1459005921471_560

Thomas Jefferson knew exactly what would happen to anyone wanting to hold public office. Do you think this applies to all men or just Trump or Cruz?

Die true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

OPINION COMMENTARY: 20 REASONS Why Thomas Jefferson Would Think BHO Is A Total P*ssy

Written by Doug Giles on January 7, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://news.clashdaily.com/2016/01/20-reasons-why-thomas-jefferson-wouldve-thought-bho-was-a-total-pssy

Screen Shot 2016-01-07 at 10.36.49 AM

If TJ is in heaven right now, and he’s able to peer through some celestial portal and behold the BS Barack has saddled this nation with — a country, by the way, that Jefferson labored to make independent from tyrants — then I would bet that Thomas is more ticked than a boar that just had its balls clipped.

How do I know Jefferson would loathe Obama and seek to jettison our Jester-In-Chief? Well, it’s principally via Thomas’ musings — musings that, for the time being, we’re still afforded the wherewithal to access; principles that also happen to have made our nation great and that used to be taught in our school system.

Plow through the following from one of our nation’s illustrious framers’ quills and try to tell me with a straight face that Jefferson wouldn’t have sought to derail BHO via tooth, fang and claw. Oh, BTW… I also believe he would’ve loathed Hillary as well. Check it out.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors?
A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.
The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife.
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements].
The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.
I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.
The disease of liberty is catching; those armies will take it in the south, carry it thence to their own country, spread there the infection of revolution and representative government, and raise its people from the prone condition of brutes to the erect altitude of man.
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.
Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular.
I have been happy … in believing that … whatever follies we may be led into as to foreign nations, we shall never give up our Union, the last anchor of our hope, and that alone which is to prevent this heavenly country from becoming an arena of gladiators.
I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.

Tree of Liberty 03 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Category:

Opinion, Political

Tagged with:

33% of Americans Believe It’s Time for States to Openly Defy the Feds – And that Number is Growing!

Posted by Tim Brown

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/33-of-americans-believe-its-time-for-states-to-openly-defy-the-feds-and-that-number-is-growing/#ecLkFE5EXopqZ3rh.99

A recent Rasmussen poll, which was conducted in July of 2015 discovered that 33% of Americans support the States openly defying the federal judiciary because of bad behavior, ie. Acting lawlessly. The poll was taken following the Supreme Court’s illegal and unconstitutional ruling on redefining marriage to include those who practice sodomy and their previous ruling regarding the unconstitutional healthcare mandate nicknamed Obamacare.

Thirty-three percent of likely voters believe the States should exercise their Tenth Amendment rights and ignore the federal rulings because they are in violation of the enumerated powers granted to the judiciary under the Constitution. According to Rasmussen, these numbers are now up nine points since February, at which time just 24% supported such a measure. Those who disagree fell from 58% in February to 52%. Apparently, a whopping 15% aren’t intelligent enough to know the difference to make a decision.

“Perhaps even more disturbing is that the voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts – Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers,” reports Rasmussen. “During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.”

The polling firm also pointed out that when it comes to those in political parties, fifty percent of Republicans side with the states, while just twenty-two percent of Democrats and thirty percent of independents also side with State’s rights on the issue.

The survey consisted of 1,000 likely voters and was conducted between June 30 and July 1, 2015.

Pastor Matthew Trewhella, author of The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates: A Proper Resistance to Tyranny and a Repudiation of Unlimited Obedience to Civil Government, commented on the judiciary and Supremacy Clause:

The federal judiciary has long built this fiction that they are the sole and final arbiter of what is constitutional or unconstitutional. They base this upon the Supremacy Clause which is Article 6, paragraph 2 of the U. S. Constitution. They claim that Article 6, paragraph 2 grants the Supreme Court supremacy to determine whether laws are constitutional or unconstitutional.

Funny thing is – when one actually takes time to read Article 6, paragraph 2, they realize that the Supreme Court isn’t even mentioned. In fact, federal courts aren’t even mentioned. What is mentioned – and is declared to have supremacy – is the U. S. Constitution itself and all laws made in accordance therewith.

In other words, America’s founders did not establish judicial supremacy as the Supreme Court is wont to assert (and thereby usurp all other branches of government) – rather they established constitutional supremacy.

All magistrates in America – whether federal, state, county, or local – did not take an oath of subservience to the federal government nor the federal judiciary. Rather, they took an oath to uphold the U. S. Constitution.

True federalism understands that all magistrates – whatever their level or sphere of jurisdiction – possess lawful authority. And that whenever one branch of government begins to play the tyrant – all other branches (whether federal, state, county, or local) have the duty then more than ever to uphold the Constitution and oppose that branch acting tyrannically – even if that branch is the Supreme Court.

Trewhella also pointed out that founding father Thomas Jefferson tried to warn the people about the friction of the Supreme Court being understood as authoritative in all matters.

In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said,

“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jefferson had previously warned Charles Hammond in 1821, “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

Just two years later, he would write to A. Coray,

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.”

If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarchy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand! The people will get behind those that will take the stand, but we must first seek out those willing to put all they are on the line for the sake of freedom, not necessarily a political future.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

OUR FOUNDERS ON ISLAM: They Slammed Obama’s ‘Beautiful Religion’

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/our-founders-on-islam-they-slammed-obamas-beautiful-religion

Contrary to what Obama would like for you to believe, the founding fathers were not very fond of Islam. Check it out from Keith Farrell via The Federalist Papers….

After winning its independence from England, American vessels no longer enjoyed British protection. France, dismayed that the US would not aid it in its war against England, also ceased protection of American ships. The result led to American vessels being raided and plundered by Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast.

After agreeing to pay 10% of the new nations dismal GDP in exchange for passage, attacks continued. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were sent as representatives to mediate the problem. It was there that they discovered that the Islamic law the pirates followed made it their duty to attack non-Muslims.

“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise,” Jefferson wrote to Secretary of State John Jay, explaining peace was not possible. (The Federalist Papers)

Ben Franklin wrote of his experience: “Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book (the Qur’an) forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.” (TFP)

John Adams, in his report to Jay, wrote of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and called him a “military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.” (TFP)

A Sign of the Times: We Are The Militia! Semper Fi!

Posted by Nancy Hayes — September 2, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/09/sign-times-militia-semper-fi

A U.S. Marine decided that he didn’t want to stick with the traditional “No Trespassing” signs that you often see scattered around the boundary lines of people’s property.

The sign he chose instead instills a slight bit of fear in those who read it, but it also sends a powerful message on where he stands about his constitutional rights. It conveys his love for the First and Second Amendments as well as a healthy reminder that he has (probably) fought for this country.

Of course, we can only hope that the person who posted this sign is actually prepared to carry out the threat implied by the sign. If he isn’t, then it becomes as useless as one of those “Gun-Free School Zone” signs you see hanging in schools across America.

Increasingly, there is a trend across America of store owners and citizens expressing their beliefs through ordinary signs that they have turned into powerful reminders of what our country stands for.

The Second Amendment is Americans’ best hope for defending ourselves. Far too often, people simply ignore it or assume that the police will be there to protect them. It would be nice if more people would wake up to the truth that the only way to ensure your safety is to have a means to stop criminals from harming you.

The average response time for police to an emergency call is between six and eight minutes. The average time to draw, aim and fire a gun is a few seconds. Which would you rather be relying on?

Used correctly, guns can save lives. It’s that simple. The Founders understood this and gave citizens the means to defend themselves — the Second Amendment.

I don’t know about you, but I absolutely LOVE this sign! I salute the U.S. Marine who posted this on his property. This Marine demonstrates more about the Constitution on this one sign than Obama ever has, as a president.

Why, do you think Obama is so into “gun control” and is willing to do whatever it takes to win the battle against guns? It’s about control of guns! Because our Dictator-in-Chief knows that if EVERY veteran stood up and fought against the government, We The People would win! Guns matter. People matter.

I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson who said:

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Our time is now! We The People must stand up, fight back and let our voices be heard! We are not going to take this any more! We are not going to take the lawlessness of President Obama. We are not going to sit back and watch as this president continues with his disrespect and destruction of the U.S. Constitution. A Constitution that has withstood the test of time, battles and deaths of many Americans who fought and died to defend it!

Our Constitution was written over 200 years ago by our Founding Fathers to support a free nation under God!

With a 1st Amendment that states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And a 2nd Amendment that states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Maybe we should share this with Obama! Do you think if enough of us send it to him, he might get the point? And while we’re at it, let’s tell Obama, the only form of gun control we are in favor of is using both hands!

#GunsSaveLives

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Connecticut Dems dump Thomas Jefferson, urge rest of U.S. to follow suit

By LU Staff on July 25, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/07/25/connecticut-dems-dump-thomas-jefferson-urge-rest-of-u-s-to-follow-suit

The Connecticut Democratic Party has officially dumped both Thomas Jefferson’s and Andrew Jackson’s names from its annual fundraising dinner due to their ties to slavery. The move was made in response to demands from the state’s chapter of the NAACP.

Each fall, the state party holds a Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey dinner to raise money for the party. Similar Jefferson-Jackson dinners are held by Democrats around the country (the Bailey name is peculiar to Connecticut).

But now the first two names are gone, voted out unanimously by the party’s state board in just a few minutes with almost no discussion, according to the Hartford Courant.

“As members of the Democratic Party, we are proud of our history as the party of inclusion. Democrats have led the way on civil rights, LGBT equality and equal rights for women,” the board’s resolution declared. “It is only fitting that the name of the party’s most visible annual event reflects our dedication to diversity and forward-looking vision.”

A replacement name will be chosen later.

Jefferson is well-known to most Americans for writing the Declaration of Independence, serving as America’s third president, championing religious freedom, and being one of the nation’s leading intellectuals in its early years. He was also a key figure in the genesis of the Democratic-Republican party, which evolved into the modern Democratic Party, so throughout history Democrats have been happy to claim him as their own.

Now, though, Democrats are souring on Jefferson due to his position as a slaveholder, as well as the belief that he fathered children with slave Sally Hemmings.

Andrew Jackson is even more vilified today. While his presidency was a key point in the rise of the “common man” as a major force in American politics, Jackson was also a slaveholder, and his policies toward American Indians have been characterized by some as genocidal.

Calls to change the name grew after the massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina last month.

Party chairman Nick Balletto said he hoped the rest of the country would join Connecticut in rejecting Jefferson’s legacy.

“I wasn’t looking to be a trailblazer or set off a trend that’s going to affect the rest of the country,” Balletto told the Connecticut Post. “Hopefully, they’ll follow suit when they see it’s the right thing to do.” Balletto added that the name simply had to go, because some people were offended by it. “When something offends someone, it’s beyond being politically correct,” Balletto said. “It just causes a need for change.” “You can’t change history, but you don’t have to honor it.”

This report, by Blake Neff, was cross-posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

The Constitutional “Shall Not’s” of Congress

Written by Bethany Blankley

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/the-constitutional-shall-nots-of-congress

Universal human rights are determined by government restraint. In what areas of human life should the government not be involved? What areas of life must the government not regulate, not restrain, not limit, not oversee, not implement, not subsidize, not legalize or make illegal? Interestingly, the first five words of the Bill of Rights state what Congress cannot do: “Congress shall make no law… .” Even more telling– the first ten amendments, with perhaps The Sixth as the exception, all define what the government cannot do:

First: “Shall make no law … prohibiting … abridging,
Second: “Shall not be infringed”
Third: “No soldier shall … without the consent …”
Fourth: “Shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue …”
Fifth: “No person shall be held … nor shall any person be subject …”
Seventh: “Shall be preserved … No fact … shall be otherwise reexamined …”
Eighth: “Shall not be required … Nor excessive … imposed, nor … punishments inflicted”
Ninth: “shall not be construed to deny or disparage”
Tenth: “Not delegated … nor prohibited.”

The third, fifth, eighth, and tenth amendments don’t state “rights;” they state what authority the government does not have. In effect, limits on government are universal human rights. The Constitution outlines specific areas of human life that are off-limits to government. This suggests that there are certain aspects of human life which are fundamentally free.

The Constitution did not outline rights or prohibitions defined by a government that could later redefine them. It outlined rules to be followed by a self-ruling people in addition to separating and balancing political authority among judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.

Despite the limits the Founders enumerated in the Constitution, their limits are still limited in their ability to constrain government overreach. Matters of conscience, especially as they relate to the First Amendment, dictate certain situations when citizens decide to not follow and/or disobey unjust laws. Interestingly, dissent in the form of collective actions of conscience (refusing to pay taxes, boycotting specific products, and armed resistance) among approximately one third of American colonists who fought for independence.

The Constitution was the result of a point in time that the Founding Fathers and Framers identified of a line they could not cross. They could not comply in good conscience– it would be immoral to comply– with the laws of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Christians joined them, citing New Testament directives, identifying that they also must only “obey God rather than men.”

They recognized they could not selectively disobey certain laws because the government itself could not be obeyed. They needed a new government. Rebellion and resistance were required because the ruling authorities had rebelled against God. The government had not only violated basic principles of justice but also had squandered God-given human rights, rendering itself illegitimate.

Thomas Jefferson asserted:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long Established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, Accordingly, all experience [has] shown 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, evidences a design to reduce [the people] 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.”

Jefferson also said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The Shall Nots were imperative to the Founders– they wanted to ensure that if Congress violated them the people had just cause to rebel.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Kansas Governor Brownback Issues Order Protecting Beliefs of Clergy About Same-Sex “Marriage”

Written by Warren Mass, Friday, 10 July 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21236-kansas-gov-brownback-issues-order-protecting-beliefs-of-clergy-about-same-sex-marriage

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued an executive order on July 7 that prohibits the state government from taking any action against any individual clergy, religious leader, or religious organization that “acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” The governor said his order protects “Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violate their sincerely and deeply held beliefs.”

Brownback issued the executive order, entitled “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” in response to last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, mandating recognition of same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states. In the order, he cited the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Section Seven of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (which he signed in 2013), all of which protect the religious liberty of Kansans. He quoted from the latter, which provides that state government shall not “substantially burden a person’s civil right to exercise of religion.”

&amp;lt;a href=’http://67.227.136.223/~adserve/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a9664042&amp;amp;amp;cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE’ target=’_blank’&amp;gt;&amp;lt;img src=’http://67.227.136.223/~adserve/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=334&amp;amp;cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&amp;amp;n=a9664042′ border=’0′ alt=” /&gt;&lt; /a&gt;

Building on that legal foundation, Brown noted that “the recent imposition of same sex marriage by the United States Supreme Court poses potential infringements on the civil right of religious liberty” and that “government actions and laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.”

Getting down to specifics, Brownback ordered:

The State Government shall not take any discriminatory action against any individual clergy or religious leader on the basis that such individual declines or will decline to perform, solemnize, or facilitate any marriage, based upon or consistent with the individual’s sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction

The four Catholic bishops in Kansas issued a joint statement urging state officials to make the enactment of new legal protections for those who are opposed in conscience to same-sex marriage a top priority in coming months. The bishops praised Brownback’s order and said in a statement: “Generations of Americans have taken freedom of conscience for granted. We, sadly, do not have that luxury anymore.”

Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently issued a similar memo to all agency heads in his state, granting state employees who object on moral grounds to same-sex marriage some protection against the ruling. Abbott’s memo stated: “All state agency heads should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief.”

While orders such as Brownback’s and Abbott’s mitigate some of the most harmful effects of the Supreme Court’s overreaching decision on same-sex “marriage” — about which Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State” — they fall far short of other remedies available to the states. One such remedy is nullification, a little-used technique in recent history, but a viable one nevertheless. As Joe Wolverton noted in a recent article for The New American on the prospect of states using nullification to resist the application of Obergefell v. Hodges within their borders:

Nullification, whether through active acts passed by the legislatures or the simple refusal to obey unconstitutional directives, is the “rightful remedy” for the ill of federal usurpation of authority. Americans committed to the Constitution must walk the fences separating the federal and state governments and they must keep the former from crossing into the territory of the latter.

Wolverton cited no less an authority on the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson to support the legitimacy of nullification, quoting from the Founding Father’s statement in the Kentucky Resolutions:

That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Though nullification is a valid, constitutional option, no state has thus far made an attempt to apply the principal to Obergefell v. Hodges. Granted, it has been only a few weeks since the decision was made, and such matters take time. However, that is all the more reason why serious discussions to consider that possibility should now be taking place.

One of the strongest statements suggesting nullification came from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who said on Newsmax TV’s The Steve Malzberg Show shortly before the High Court handed down its decision that the states should ignore any Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. “A ruling by the Supreme Court is nothing but an opinion if the legislative branch and the executive branch do not enforce it,” said DeLay. “Not only that, if the states would just invoke the 10th Amendment and assert their sovereignty, they can defy a ruling by the Supreme Court. It’s in the Constitution. We can tell the court what cases they can hear.”

What DeLay described regarding telling the federal courts which cases they can hear is governed not by the 10th Amendment, which protects the sovereignty of the states, but by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to make exceptions to and regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Former Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) attempted to utilize this power when he introduced his We the People Act in 2004 and 2009. The bill, if it had passed, would have removed jurisdiction of federal courts from cases involving the establishment of religion, sexual orientation, abortion, and marriage.

Invoking such power made more practical sense when DeLay mentioned it prior to Obergefell v. Hodges being decided. Since the court has now ruled, it would be difficult to rescind its jurisdiction to decide on marriage cases retroactively. However it is not too late to use the other tool that DeLay recommended, the 10th Amendment, to which Justice Alito alluded when he said, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”

If the decision should be decided by the states, then the states must declare that the power usurped by the Supreme Court in rendering that decision is null.

Related articles:

Political Leaders Voice Discontent With Supreme Court Marriage Ruling

Catholic Leaders Vow to Stand Against Contraception Mandate, Same-sex Marriage

Texas AG: “Reach of Court’s Opinion Stops at the Door of the First Amendment”

Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification

Rome: Hundreds of Thousands Protest Against Same-sex Unions

Marriage Can’t Be Redefined

Sen. Lee and Rep. Labrador Propose Protection for Religious Liberty

Southern Baptist Leader: Prepare for Civil Disobedience Over Gay Marriage Ruling

As Gov. of Texas, Would Abbott Continue to Stand for States’ Rights?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Here is an EXCELLENT Comment I received Yesterday.

david andre davison said:

Regarding Academic: Constitution Is ‘Confederate Symbol,’ Censor It

July 8, 2015 at 7:53 pm

As a student of History, I get enjoyment out of modern society trying to rewrite the past to suit their views. History is what really happened, not a revision that suits our present philosophy.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners. Abraham Lincoln wanted to send slaves back to Africa. Many southerners didn’t even own slaves. The Civil War was fought over tariffs and states rights, not only slavery…

What does the future hold for History? Will we re-write Pearl Harbor as not to offend our Japanese friends and population? Will we erase all evidence of the unfair encroachment of Native American villages and lands, along with broken peace treaties? What about the way we “Stole” Florida from Spain and the Seminoles, or the southwest from Mexico?

Re-writing history and removing monuments and symbols only destines us to repeat our mistakes through ignorance.

Just my two-cents!

I would like to hear from more of you. This was an excellent comment, based on obvious study of history.

Thank You Again, david andre davison

Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org

Category:

Opinion

Tagged with:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

Article One

July 7, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/07/article-one

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

What founders want to teach Obama this July 4

Posted By Chuck Norris On 06/28/2015

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/what-founders-want-to-teach-obama-this-july-4

I commend President Obama for giving the eulogy at the funeral of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, who was gunned down along with eight other precious souls during a Bible study at their Charleston Church. Obama said some honorable and moving words about the fallen. He also spoke at length about amazing grace – and even sang about it.

But then he stirred what I call the nebulous and confusing religious pot by stating: “If we can find that grace, anything is possible. If we contacted that grace – can tap that grace, everything can change.”

“If we can find”? “If we contacted … can tap”? “If”?

The president is right that “anything is possible” and “everything can change” with God’s amazing grace. But he ought not to have spoken with such ambiguity, doubt and conditionality as “if” finding grace were wishing upon a star or discovering a needle in a haystack.

America’s founders – as well as most presidents throughout history – were unequivocally certain about the role of faith in our republic. They were without hesitation or doubt when they spoke about the bedrock of religion in society and human hearts. Our founders knew without it, they were sunk as well as our nation.

On the eve of another Independence Day, I think it’s critical that we reconsider exactly how our founders expected religion to breathe life into our nation and play out in society. If we don’t, we run the risk of crippling our country and shredding it at its seams. Indeed, we’ve already traveled too far down the road of religious degradation by omitting God from classrooms to historic monuments. We have also bastardized our founders’ first tenet of religion (First Amendment) and totally abandoned their understanding and call for its primary purpose in our republic. Let me explain.

Our founders’ first tenet of religion is captured in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. You know the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In short, religious liberty will reign in our new nation. Congress shall protect individuals from forced sectarianism unlike it was done in England, and choice and freedom are to be protected and secured from the tyranny of government.

Well, that isn’t our First Amendment today, or at least how most secular progressives interpret it. They explain and use it solely as a buffer from keeping religious opinion or discussion – in any way, shape or form – out of every governmental or public arena. But that is the polar opposite of the First Amendment’s very purpose, which was to protect and preserve religious practice and liberty in any place, including in the halls of government.

As I wrote in my New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” though Jefferson is generally hailed as the chief of church-state separation, proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (specifically Christian) influence comes from these facts: He endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that allotted federal money to support the building of a Catholic church and to pay the salaries of the church’s priests, and repeatedly renewed legislation that gave land to the United Brethren to help their missionary activities among the Indians.

Some might be completely surprised to discover that just two days after Jefferson wrote his famous letter citing the “wall of separation between Church & State,” he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. Capitol. The very seat of our nation’s government was used for sacred purposes. The Library of Congress’ website notes, “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church.”

President John Adams spoke about how central God was to be in our republic, when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

And to what religion was Adams referring? He gave us an answer when he wrote, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. … And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were united.”

Our Founders believed religion (specifically Christianity) would serve as the basis for morality and decency. They warned us specifically that, to abandon that foundation for our ethics, would leave society in civil unrest—just as we see today in run amuck classrooms and homes across the nation and people treating one another with such malevolence.

George Washington also warned future Americans of this very problem in his presidential farewell address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Well, the present leaders of our nation (including the Supreme Court) have turned a deaf ear to Washington’s warning and taken him up on his challenge to try to maintain “morality … without religion.”

America is now like it was in the time of the Judges in the Old Testament: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). That’s how it is today – with God being abandoned, so is our moral basis, and everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes. We’ve lost our moral compass, and that includes our president.

As a result, the president is as lost as the most wayward and rebellious youth. Instead of conveying any form of positive Washington conviction about the role of religion, President Obama casts conditional clauses (“If”) and doubt. He might have sounded like a preacher this past week in Charleston, but the truth is he is a charlatan chameleon when it comes to religion and specifically Christianity. Indeed he’s been known to mock it as he did in 2006 when he gave the following secular progressive diatribe against it.

As my friend and editor of WND, Joseph Farah, noted in 2012, Obama’s speech was given before an audience led by socialist Jim Wallis at the Call for Renewal conference. It starts getting interesting around the 26-minute mark, when Obama first made the point publicly that “whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Obama went on, “Even if we had only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama asks rhetorically. “Would it be James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK – and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application. So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”

Regarding Obama’s words, I conclude not with my comments but those of John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of the College of New Jersey (1768-94; now Princeton University), who said, “He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who set himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country.”

(Next week, I’ll expand on my thoughts here in my Independence Day weekend column, “In God we still must trust.” In the meantime, I highly encourage your reading of my New York Times bestseller, “Black Belt Patriotism,” where you will find loads more about what our founders actually thought, practiced, and wanted for our country)

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Patriot “Minimimalist”

The other day, the following passage from the Bible seemed to jump out at me. Let’s read, Matthew 19:16-24 (ERV); 16A man came to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to have eternal life?”

17Jesus answered, “Why do you ask me about what is good? Only God is good. But if you want to have eternal life, obey the law’s commands.”

18The man asked, “Which ones?”

Jesus answered, “‘You must not murder anyone, you must not commit adultery, you must not steal, you must not tell lies about others, 19you must respect your father and mother, (Quote from Ex. 20:12-16Deut. 5:16-20) and ‘love your neighbor (Quote from Lev. 19:18)”

20The young man said, “I have obeyed all these commands. What else do I need?”

21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, then go and sell all that you own. Give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven. Then come and follow me!”

22But when the young man heard Jesus tell him to give away his money, he was sad. He didn’t want to do this, because he was very rich. So he left.

23Then Jesus said to his followers, “The truth is, it will be very hard for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom. 24Yes, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom.”

The “minimimalist” is often unhappy with the minimums for acceptable obedience. In this case, the man wanted to know the minimum he could get away with in order to be considered righteous before God. The answer was unacceptable because it cost more than he was willing to do. You do not have to be rich by the worlds standards in order to be associated with this man. Anything we are not willing to give up or get rid of, condemns us by our own choosing. Whatever it is we refuse to give up in order to be a true follower of Jesus becomes an anchor dragging us down to the abyss of destruction. That is not God’s will. Obedience is forsaking ALL to follow Jesus. Anything less is sin.

That includes Patriots. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying, “The “Tree of Liberty” must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of PATRIOTS and TYRANTS.” It is not hard to find many people who will agree with that statement, but because they are “Minimumalist Patriots”, they condition their agreement with, “As long as it’s someone else’s blood”.

As God the Father is looking for true Heaven Patriots, He is also looking for some real “American Patriots” who set no conditions to their commitment in their fight for freedom. Unfortunately, finding those Patriots are hard. Yes, we can find many of them who have volunteered for the military. But what about the rest of us?

I have taken the pledge to give all to God through the Lord Jesus Christ. As a Marine, I pledged my honor and life to defend the United States and the Constitution of the same. At 67 years of age, that commitment has not waned. How about you? What is your commitment to the recovery of our country? Are you a “Minimumalist”, or a Tree of Liberty Patriot?

Category:

Patriotic

Tagged with:

Executive Orders: Carving a Path to Dictatorship

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/executive-orders-carving-path-dictatorship/#rusrVpLY02pqejd7.99

Posted by Jim White

Executive Orders, issued by the current sitting US President at the time, are nothing new to America. In fact, our first President, George Washington, issued 8 of them during his presidency. From my research, it is generally understood that Executive Orders stem from two areas of the US Constitution, and both references that substantiate Executive Orders are fairly weak. As one website explains:

Presidents have been issuing executive orders since 1789 even though the Constitution does not explicitly give them the right to do so. However, vague wording in Article II Section 1 and Article II Section 2 gives the president this privilege. Executive orders also include National Security directives and Homeland Security Presidential Directives.

A well-referenced Wikipedia entry further illustrates the point:

Although there is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of “executive power” given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President’s sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office

Throughout history, Executive Orders have been responsible, at times, for drastically altering the lives of the American populace. Perhaps the most heinous example being EO 9066, issued by Franklin D. Roosevelt, which was ultimately responsible for the internment of more than 60,000 American citizens of Japanese descent, and over 10,000 of German and Italian ancestry. That seems like a lot of power in the hands of one man and his administration. Unfortunately, it seems that the use of Executive Orders is set to increase, further eroding the Constitutional principles that this nation was founded upon.

In a recent article published by the Daily Caller, Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has promised to give Obama a number of Executive Orders to sign; in fact, stating that Executive Orders should be number one on the agenda for her newly formed Full Employment Caucus.

To give you an example of how Obama has used this extraordinary power in the past, one only needs to look here. In this case, Obama exercised Executive Privilege, but it really amounts to a de facto Executive Order. The abuse of EO’s, by this administration, is particularly alarming when one discovers Obama’s history of deceit.

Are Executive Orders leading our nation into bondage? I suppose that if for each one of us to decide. I do know, however, whenever a president of any nation can rule by fiat, that their actions are protected by the very office that they serve, that nation is on a slippery slope to dictatorship. Allow me to leave you with the words of one of our greatest Founding Fathers:

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrations), too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson

About Jim White

&lt;img alt=” src=’http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7b948b69c165b14510657dfd9d4b399e?s=68&amp;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D68&amp;r=G’ class=’avatar avatar-68 photo’ height=’68’ width=’68’ />

Jim is the owner and editor of Northwest Liberty News. He is a patriot who could no longer ignore the Founding Fathers whispering in his ear to take action and his goal is to inspire you to take action.

View all posts by Jim White →

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘thomas jefferson’

BY: HELEN RALEIGH | MAY 10, 2023

Assimilation Strengthens and Protects

Immigrants Must Pledge Allegiance

Citizenship Isn’t Cheap

Share this:

Like this:

Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 03, 2019 6:15 PM

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

Share this:

Like this:

By Gary DeMar July 19, 2016

What’s happened in America with guns? Why is it that tens of thousands of high school students took riflery classes for decades and there was very little gun violence in the United States?

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.

2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

“Prohibiting the teaching of creationism in favor of evolution creates an atheistic, belligerent tone that might explain why our kids sometimes perform like Godzilla instead of children made in the image of God.

“While evolution teaches that we are accidents or freaks of nature, creationism shows humankind as the offspring of a divine Creator. There are rules to follow which govern not only our time on Earth, but also our afterlife.

* * * * *

“If evolution is forced on our kids, we shouldn’t be perplexed when they beat on their chests or, worse yet, beat on each other and their teachers.”1

Share this:

Like this:

Commentary By Pamela Adams April 2, 2016

Benjamin Franklin once said, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”

As Franklin warned, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Share this:

Like this:

By Pamela Adams March 28, 2016

Share this:

Like this:

Published on March 26, 2016

Thomas Jefferson knew exactly what would happen to anyone wanting to hold public office. Do you think this applies to all men or just Trump or Cruz?

Share this:

Like this:

Written by Doug Giles on January 7, 2016

I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.

A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.

Share this:

Like this:

In other words, America’s founders did not establish judicial supremacy as the Supreme Court is wont to assert (and thereby usurp all other branches of government) – rather they established constitutional supremacy.

All magistrates in America – whether federal, state, county, or local – did not take an oath of subservience to the federal government nor the federal judiciary. Rather, they took an oath to uphold the U. S. Constitution.

“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Share this:

Like this:

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/10/our-founders-on-islam-they-slammed-obamas-beautiful-religion

Share this:

Like this:

Posted by Nancy Hayes — September 2, 2015

I don’t know about you, but I absolutely LOVE this sign! I salute the U.S. Marine who posted this on his property. This Marine demonstrates more about the Constitution on this one sign than Obama ever has, as a president.

I am reminded of a quote from Thomas Jefferson who said:

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Our Constitution was written over 200 years ago by our Founding Fathers to support a free nation under God!

With a 1st Amendment that states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And a 2nd Amendment that states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Maybe we should share this with Obama! Do you think if enough of us send it to him, he might get the point? And while we’re at it, let’s tell Obama, the only form of gun control we are in favor of is using both hands!

#GunsSaveLives

Share this:

Like this:

By LU Staff on July 25, 2015

Share this:

Like this:

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evidences a design to reduce [the people] 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.”

Share this:

Like this:

Written by Warren Mass, Friday, 10 July 2015

Share this:

Like this:

david andre davison said:

As a student of History, I get enjoyment out of modern society trying to rewrite the past to suit their views. History is what really happened, not a revision that suits our present philosophy.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners. Abraham Lincoln wanted to send slaves back to Africa. Many southerners didn’t even own slaves. The Civil War was fought over tariffs and states rights, not only slavery…

Re-writing history and removing monuments and symbols only destines us to repeat our mistakes through ignorance.

Just my two-cents!

I would like to hear from more of you. This was an excellent comment, based on obvious study of history.

Thank You Again, david andre davison

Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org

*** * * * ***

“If evolution is forced on our kids, we shouldn’t be perplexed when they beat on their chests or, worse yet, beat on each other and their teachers.”¹