Principles of Liberty, Principle 25: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations: entangling alliances with none.”

This quote, from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address, is the product of a careful study of scripture and history. The founding fathers recognized that many strong and brave nations had been brought to ruin by forming unhealthy alliances.

The modern history of the United States is riddled with examples of our own failed alliances, and failed foreign policy. Many people do not realize that the United States was instrumental in bringing both the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein to power – only to end up, in the former case, abandoning a faithful ally, and in the latter case finding ourselves in the unsavory position of removing the one we had helped to install. There are many other examples of failed attempts on our part to manipulate the politics and history of the world.

The United States, as a nation, is in a unique position among the world powers. We are blessed with geography and resources that would allow us to be entirely self-sufficient. Yet our own political shenanigans have left us unable to leverage these blessings to our own advantage. Often the wall that blocks our progress is the wall of “foreign policy.”

How peaceful might our sovereignty be if it were not for the constant “wheeling and dealing” we insist on pursuing with other nations? This is not to say that military action is never necessary. Certainly, however, the way we utilize our military strength, and the places and situations for which we are willing to expend the blood and lives of our young men and women, could be more carefully and thoughtfully chosen. And When we choose to “engage”, the objective should be clear and achievable, and we should “play to win.”

What if the United States conducted itself according to Thomas Jefferson’s quote? What if we had never allowed ourselves to become so dependent on foreign oil? What if we had not chosen to intervene in Iraq, or if national security demanded such action, what if we had truly made it our objective to WIN THE WAR? What if we returned to a time when national interests took precedence over political correctness? Israel actively engages in racial and political profiling at every point of entry to their country; and although they are surrounded by enemies who want to see their nation destroyed, they are very effective at “keeping the wolves at bay” while still enjoying relative freedom for their citizens.

The citizens of the United States should pause and take stock of our situation, our resources, and our national ideals; and then we should actively press our government to pursue policies that are consistent with those ideals. We should always be willing to be friends with those who are willing. We should be willing to pursue commerce with other nations where fair trade is possible and supported. We should avoid “entangling alliances” that place our national sovereignty, and the lives of our military, at unnecessary risk, or threaten national embarrassment. We should at all times pursue and attempt to maintain peace with all nations. And when we find it necessary to pursue a military solution, we should let our military experts determine what is necessary, and the world should know that we will “play to win” and that our national interests will come before “entangling alliances.”

“Principles of Liberty” adapted from The 5,000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen © 1991, 2007

Principles of Liberty, Principle 24: A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.

There are a number of levels on which a free people can stay strong. We can stay strong physically, by caring for our bodies, engaging in honest labor, and developing healthy habits. We can stay strong morally by training ourselves to resist “instant gratification”, observing the Golden Rule, and exercising self-control and restraint. We can stay strong as a society by upholding and defending the foundations of our society – faith, family, self-reliance, civic pride, and mutual responsibility.

Just a glance at the above list will reveal that on many fronts today America is failing. The nation is weakening because her people are weakening.

Weakening spiritually: We’ve traded “live free or die” for the cradle to grave nanny state. We’ve traded “One nation under God” for “whatever is right in your own eyes.” We’ve abandoned the concept that there is an ultimate system of reward and punishment, and this has “freed” us to live as animals, with no thought of consequence.

Weakening morally: Few people, it seems, even make a token attempt to subdue their lusts or overcome the “I want it now” syndrome. Our government has moved from encouraging thrift as a foundational economic principle to encouraging debt for the citizenry, and like sheep we follow along. We have “cast off restraint” and even if we do not participate in immoral activity, we refuse to confront and debate those who do.

Weakening Physically: Many of us are overweight and out of shape. Most 30 year old males today could not do half the daily labor a lad of 12 or 14 was capable of in 1800. We take no care for our bodies, and then we expect the government to care for us when we are weak, fat, diseased, and frail. Society ultimately pays the price for our overindulgence and sloth.

Weakening Families: We have related in previous articles in this series the immutable fact, the natural law, that family is the foundation of society and right government. Yet in the United States today enemies of the people and the state are attempting to redefine family in a way that will ultimately destroy the very fabric of a free society and subvert our ability to raise another generation capable of self-government and the preservation of freedom.

Weakening self-reliance: Benjamin Franklin once said that “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” It would appear he was prophetic. John F. Kennedy once said “Ask not what your country can do for you, as what you can do for your country.” The quote seems trite to us today, when nearly half of all American households include a member who receives some form of government “entitlement” benefit, and half of all households pay no federal income tax. We live in an age of “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine” thinking; and it is bankrupting our nation. Rather than rely on ingenuity, determination and hard work to elevate our economic status or provide for our needs, we expect to be richly rewarded for the minimum amount of effort, demanding from the government and our employer what we would not otherwise receive in a free and open, self-adjusting economy.

Weakening Civic pride: A recent post on Facebook noted that a certain actor has been all over our news outlets because of his unsavory and anti-social behavior. In the same time frame a number of men and women have lost their lives in defense of our country and our freedoms, and they are not even mentioned. Few outside of their families and friends can name them. Our government, of course, with constant revelations of corruption, abuse of power, and waste, gives us little to feel proud about. The sense of America as a nation with a destiny is waning, and few of us have the heart to try to save her against such long odds.

Weakening responsibility: Few of us are responsible anymore; nothing is ever “my fault” or “my responsibility” and I will sue my own mother and father to prove it. The United States has many lawyers that “specialize” in helping people “get what is theirs” – from the government and from each other. They have become a class unto themselves, despised by the populace on the surface and yet clung to because we all want to prove our “rights”, prove we are “entitled” and prove it isn’t our fault or our responsibility. Other nations look in astonishment at our litigious ways. Our courts are clogged with frivolous lawsuits, and there is no sign of relief.

All of these burdens and weaknesses are, of course, surmountable; but is it not interesting that the fate of the nation, ultimately, rests on the decisions, proclivities, and activities that each of us, as individuals, engage in? If “we the people” cannot reign in our appetites, control our lusts, strengthen ourselves physically, morally, spiritually, and mentally, and accept less from our government in order to preserve our freedom, then “we the people” will certainly become the servants of tyrants.

A Venango County school district is closing schools again – this time it’s Polk and Utica in the Franklin School District. Of course, there are the usual “mandatory” public meetings where moms wring their hands and dads rant about how the schools are needed. Once the meetings are over and the hoopla dies down, the schools will close anyway. It’s inevitable.

Here’s a little reality check: the schools are not needed – that’s why the district wants to close them. The population of Venango County is declining, and there just aren’t enough kids in the area to justify the number of schools we have. That, plus the ever-tightening budget in the slumping economy, is forcing the demise of the “local” school.

So, what’s a parent to do? Well, here’s a thought – SCHOOL CHOICE. It already exists – Make it your own. I think it’s time we started leveraging today’s technology in the educational arena. I think it would be great if we went back to the days when dad went to work, mom stayed home and took care of the kids, and now the kids don’t even have to go to school – we can cyber school them! Imagine how much money we would save if we didn’t have any expensive school buildings, with all the inherent overhead. Imagine a world where parents actually took care of their own kids and accepted responsibility for raising them – including choosing and monitoring their educational experiences!

A recent article in the The Progressive  (carried by the Franklin, PA News-Herald) decried the increase in “Voter ID” laws. These laws require voters to produce some authorized form of identification, generally a photo ID, when they enter a polling place to vote.

David A. Love of the Progressive Media Project states in the article that voter ID laws will “sabotage” the right of some people to vote. Love states “as many as 5 million people” across the country could be affected, and “low income voters, the young, people of color and those with disabilities” will be disproportionately affected.

 Well, here’s another perspective: There are over 200 million people who are eligible to vote in the United States; in the last Presidential election 131 million did so. Affecting 5 million voters is almost statistically insignificant – 2% or less of the eligible population, and 3% or less of the total actual voting public. Furthermore, most of the voter ID laws simply require presentation of a valid photo ID or voter Registration card at the time of casting your ballot. Since nearly all states make photo IDs available to citizens, even if you do not drive,  It is not hard to surmise that there is probably a reason why those 5 million people cannot produce a valid photo ID or voter registration card, and the reason they cannot produce the ID would, in most cases, disqualify them from voting anyway.

The real reason that Mr. Love and others of his liberal persuasion are crying “foul” is simple: it is a lot harder to stuff the ballot box if you have to produce a picture of every person voting, or prove the person’s eligibility to vote. All those busloads of homeless folk that were paid to vote in Chicago and its environs (and other places) in the last presidential election, all those dead people who were amazingly resurrected to vote, will suddenly disappear, leaving only legitimate, law abiding, tax paying citizens to cast ballots.

 That’s what Mr. Love is really complaining about. That’s why liberals fear Voter ID laws.

Principles of Liberty, Principle 23: A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.

Unfortunately many in the United States assume this principle is fulfilled by our compulsory public education laws. Yet recent events in the financial and government sectors have helped to highlight the glaring inadequacies of America’s public education system.

In order to understand the founding fathers’ expectations concerning education, we should look back to the system they knew: a cooperative system of public and private education controlled entirely at the local level with virtually no federal involvement.
Consider these facts:

In 1850 Alexis de Tocqueville observed that “In New England every citizen is instructed in the elements of human knowledge; he is also taught the doctrine and the evidences of his religion; he must know the history of his country and the main features of its Constitution. In Connecticut and Massachusetts you will very seldom find a man whose knowledge of all these things is only superficial, and anybody completely unaware of them is quite an oddity.” While it is true that New England pioneered the development of public and compulsory education, the state government had little direct involvement. Schools were established, curriculums created, teachers paid, and discipline maintained, not by the government, but by the parents in the context of the local community. The state and federal governments neither provided nor interfered with the educational process, but merely informed the citizenry that education must be provided. And the general population understood so well the value of education to the health of the republic that providing for education was considered virtually a religious duty; the poorest village or hamlet in the nation was not without a church and a school in some form.

Fast forward to today. In the United States of America, compulsory public education is now demanded and dictated by the federal government, and all but controlled by the state; but it may not truly qualify as education. The founding fathers would surely be aghast to know that, in 21st century America, 70% of high school students in Oklahoma could not name the first president. Only 41% of teenagers can name the 3 branches of the federal government. The United States is lagging educationally in the areas of mathematics, science, and literacy. Concerned parents turn in increasing numbers to home schooling and private education, only to find their efforts thwarted by a government bureaucracy more intent on self-preservation than on the welfare of the students – or the republic.

The developing nations of the world have wholeheartedly embraced the concept of public/private cooperation in which small, private schools which operate more cheaply and more efficiently than their government run counterparts are an integral part of the educational structure. Yet the United States has not yet discovered this secret.

In the current milieu of financial uncertainty it is more important than ever to get “the most bang for our buck” in every endeavor, and no less so in the area of education; yet our government answers every perceived educational shortfall by throwing money at it, with little to no evidence that there is any significant return on the investment.

There is no doubt that a free society requires a broad program of general education, and it is time for the citizens of the United States to demand just that – not a social engineering program, but a genuine program of education, leveraging free market principles to deliver high quality at the lowest possible cost – something a government bureaucracy will never achieve.

In order to revitalize our educational system, the following steps should be taken:

1. Return all responsibility for educational systems to the state level; eliminate the federal oversight of education, which is outside the constitutional mandate of the federal government.
2. Embrace a cooperative public/private educational model, with school voucher and school choice programs supported, and with tax breaks for parents who choose alternatives to public education.
3. Place the burden of performance equally on the student and the teacher. Powerful unions should not be permitted to keep poor quality, underperforming teachers in their jobs; and students should be expected to perform in school rather than just “feel good about themselves.”
4. Make education results oriented, and let education dollars follow success, whether in the public or the private sector. Allow competition in the school system, and the best schools will win. Ultimately, that would be a win for the republic.

The 28 Principles of Freedom are adapted from The 5,000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies. © 1991, 2007.

Principles of Liberty, principle 22: A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.

As we have stated in previous articles in this series, the will of the majority is essential to a representative republican form of government. Those in power are elected as the voice and hands of the majority, to accomplish the will of the majority, while respecting the basic rights of the minority. This, in a nutshell, is how free men should be governed.

The recent case of Obamacare is an example of what happens when the rule of law is usurped by the whims of men. In this day and age with all of our communication tools, polling, etc. it is fairly easy to keep a finger on the pulse of the citizenry. When 70% of the people say they don’t want something, it is fairly obvious there is not majority support for it. When the government enacts such legislation anyway, the people have clearly lost control of the government, and we are no longer ruled by law but by the whims of men.

One thing that is essential to the rule of law is the acknowledgement of immutable, self-evident Truth as outlined in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Another critical element is a common vehicle for making and enforcing law – hence the need for parliamentary procedure. In a republican form of government the processes themselves become an integral part of the system of checks and balances that are intended to keep government “chained and fettered” and not allow it to leave its proper course.

When the governing powers alter, on a whim, the procedures of government, or when they create new and novel processes at their discretion and for their own benefit, the citizens ultimately suffer. Such is the case with many of the underhanded and inherently “illegal” (i.e. “against the rule of law”) processes we see used today by our own congress. Earmarks, amendments, “deem and pass”, and other legislative slights of hand, are all examples of the rule of law being circumvented in favor of rule by the whims of men.

This deeper underlying principle is why we should oppose the legislation that results from such law making circus fair. We the people must be willing to suffer some sacrifices to return our nation to a true rule of law, and we must force our elected representatives to uphold the rule of law in each decision they make on our behalf.

Returning to the issue of Obamacare, we should favor the overturn of this legislation on the grounds of legal impropriety alone. The bill clearly did not represent the will of the majority of Americans; it was passed through the use of several extremely questionable procedural tactics; it was not properly funded; and it places an illegal and unconstitutional burden on the citizens to engage in commerce against their will (forcing the purchase of a commodity by legal fiat.)

Do not be fooled by the silver tongue of the politicians, or the inept and often false reporting of the liberal media. These types of congressional power plays must be stopped if we are to maintain maximum personal freedom in a true representative republic.

The 28 Principles of Liberty based on The 5,000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, © 1991, 2006, National Center for Constitutional Studies.

“Election season” is already heating up, and while there are a host of critical issues facing the United States, it seems the focus of most of America is the economy. The candidates are lining up their talking points, offering pablum to the masses, and basically offering no solutions – as usual. Meanwhile, Washington continues it’s attempts to rape the economy in the name of “progress” while engaging in “gridlock politics.”

If they really wanted to fundamentally fix the economy (which I do not personally believe they do, or they would have done it by now) here is what I think they should do.

First, acknowledge that we don’t need more government. If you want to know why the economy is collapsing, just looke at the Post Office, the railroads, farming, social security, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or any of the other dozens of areas where government has intruded beyond their constitutional limits. FAIL. EVERY TIME. The only thing you can say is that the government is consistent. They NEVER help, and ALWAYS hurt in the long run.

Second, why re-invent the wheel? It is true that anyone can get elected to congress – meaning that many of our elected representatives are not business leaders or even financially savvy. There is nothing wrong with that, though, because there is a wealth of expertise readily available to the government from PRIVATE think tanks that have already done the research and the homework.

For example, here’s an article about the Fair Tax. This plan has decades of research behind it, it could be supported by both sides of the aisle, and it would generate immediate benefits to the economy. Of course, if they’re going to really reform that tax base, they must first return the Constitution to its rightful place by permanently banning the federal income tax – something we could all agree on. Along with reforming the tax code and positively impacting the government’s bottom line, this would also mean that, for the first time in centuries, everyone would be treated “fairly and equally” under the law.

While they’re revising the tax code, they can share with the rest of us so we can all be engaged. Here’s a paper on promoting government transparency - a goal that most politicians say they support, but their actions speak louder than words.

Anyone out there old enough to remember the Grace Commission Report? It’s still out there – and NOT ONE THING was ever done to enact the recommendations of this panel of economic experts. Maybe it’s time to resurrect this report.

These are just a couple of examples of the wealth of research, expertise, and answers that are available to our current and future politicians. If only they would listen. Ignorance is no excuse.

What I want is a concrete plan with practical steps. Tell me what you are going to do, and I will decide if I like it.

One thing we cannot deny, Obama told us exactly what he would do, and he’s done it (or as much of it as he could before he totally destroyed the nation.) We can now say we’ve given liberal, socialist policies an honest chance – and they have failed miserably. Let’s try free market economics and limited taxation again – it worked for the first one hundred and fifty years, and I bet it would work again.

Principles of Liberty, Principle 21: Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.

I was very encouraged  a while back when the Penn State Cooperative Extension Service and the Franklin Chamber of Commerce co-sponsored a workshop on “running for local office”. I trust that the participants received some valuable tips and tools related to running for local public office.

We’ve noted in previous articles in this series that the government of the United States is modeled on principles found in the history of Israel and the Anglo-Saxons. Exodus tells us that Moses appointed “captains of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens” for the children of Israel. As much as possible, matters of government were handled at the lower levels – as close to the affected citizens as possible. Similarly the early Anglo Saxons had localized government in which the head of ten families was the “tithing man”, the head of 50 families was the “vil-man”, or head of the village, the head of 100 families was the hundred man, and the head of 1000 families was the “eolderman” (later shortened to “earl”.) The eolderman’s assistant was the “shire reef” which we pronounce “sheriff.” Anglo Saxons considered themselves a “commonwealth of freemen.”

Thomas Jefferson believed that the principles of self-government embodied in these cultures were foundational to efficient representative government; he referred to these foundations as the “ancient principles.” While the various states of the union used slightly different terms for the various levels of government, every state had local government structured according to these “ancient principles.” Today we see these same principles in our arrangements of villages, townships, towns, cities (with their districts), counties, states, and finally the national government. You may have never realized this or thought much about it, but the goal of these various levels of government is to conform to the principles first identified in Exodus chapter 18 in the Bible.

In the early days of the United States participating in government was a serious responsibility of every adult. Families would discuss matters of importance around the dinner table. Men, representing their families, would meet in churches and grange halls to discuss matters at the village and township level. Township and city officials would have regular discourse with their county representatives; counties communicated regularly with their state representatives, and so on.

It was a major sacrifice to hold public office in those days; but people would offer their service (hence the term “public servant”) because they recognized the importance of strong local government in preserving individual liberty. Everyone took their turn; no one wanted to occupy an office very long, for there was no profit in it. In fact, most people suffered hardship, financially and in other ways, during their term of office; but serving the public was a “sacred honor”, a trust, and a responsibility that was taken seriously.

Fast forward 300 years. Local governments tend to be weak, their power and authority stripped by the higher levels of government; often local governments are just as corrupt as the higher levels. People of character and ability shy away from holding public office, and so lesser men and women are left to fill the positions. We must return to a correct attitude toward public service, especially at the local level; we the people must take a stand at every turn in favor of local control and local government; and we must continue to press for preservation of the “ancient principles.”

Follow this link to a “Citizen’s Guide to Pennsylvania Local Government”

The 28 Principles of Liberty based on The 5,000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, © 1991, 2006,NationalCenterfor Constitutional Studies.

Principles of Liberty, Principle 20: Efficiency and dispatch require government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.

Looking through the lens of 21^st century thought and wisdom, we all recognize that the history of the United States has several dark spots on it. One is the issue of slavery, which most of the founding fathers recognized as inherently evil but which they seemed powerless to correct during the earliest days of this nation.

Another dark issue, which has still not been resolved satisfactorily, is the abuse of the native populations of North America.

While these evils did and do exist, it must be noted that they are not the fault of our founding documents. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has found slavery to be incompatible with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Similarly, any thinking man or woman can immediately recognize that our historical treatment of the native populations of North America is also incompatible with the founding documents of the nation.

It has previously been remarked upon that one of the astounding features of the American Revolution is its direct and distinct link to the progress society has made in the 300 brief years since the event. After thousands of years of unchanged transportation, civil structures, communication, etc. we leaped forward to the automobile, space travel, and wireless communication networks. Similarly we are making progress in the areas of civility. Slavery was abolished; and though it was a slow and arduous road, equal rights at last were enshrined in our justice system for all races. Women were recognized as equal contributors to society and permitted to fully participate in the law, in government, and in business. Surely no one wants to turn back the clock on these important advances; and while we have not yet achieved perfection in these areas, the progress we have made should encourage us that more progress is possible.

We must recognize, however, and be willing to verbalize, that there is a difference between rights and conveniences, between needs and desires. And there is still a distinction between the majority and the minority – that’s why it’s called a minority. The pendulum has swung so far in this area that some correction is bound to occur.

The current attempt by the homosexual movement to ride on the coat tails of legitimate fights for civil rights is one example of inappropriate use of the “minority” label. Another example is the “Americans with Disabilities Act”, which has added millions of dollars in regulatory costs to construction and other business transactions.

Rights must be protected; but every man and woman is required to live with some inconveniences due to physical, mental, educational, familial, and geographical realities. To expect the government or even society as a whole, to address all of these issues is a distortion of our societal charter. Certainly we can help one another, and we should; but when the conveniences and desires of the minority supersede the rights and will of the majority, an elitist minority is created, and society suffers. We must all acknowledge the need to balance majority rule and minority rights; and we must all learn to differentiate between rights and desires. They are not the same. The homosexual should certainly have the same right to employment as the heterosexual; on the other hand, why do I have to know what someone’s sexual orientation is? The majority of us don’t want someone else’s sexual proclivities thrust in our face day in and day out. Similarly, the one armed man or the wheelchair bound individual have the right to work and use the same facilities I use within reason. But I also have rights as a six foot tall individual with 2 arms and 2 legs, which are not subordinate to the minority. If accommodating the minority renders facilities useless to the majority, then a preference has been established for the minority. Protection against prejudice, slander, and assault are already graven into our justice system for everyone, and they should be used whenever appropriate. But the majority still must rule in a free republic. Otherwise it is not a free republic, but an oligarchy of the minority.

“Principles of Liberty” adapted from The 5,000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen © 1991, 2007