Our Nation's Foundations Lesson Two

Once the Bedrock is found, a builder will lay a solid foundation. Our Founders called it the Rule of Law. They were sick and tired of the whims of the selfish and power-hungry King George. The government of the new United States of America would have laws for everyone to follow, whether you were rich or poor, powerful or weak. They insisted on a Constitutional Republic - one that had written laws that guaranteed justice for all.

A Democracy relies on the vote of every person, because it is ruled by majority opinion. A Constitutional Republic is rule by Law, through representatives elected by citizens who choose to vote. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

Originally, the Framers of our Constitution established 17 Federal laws, represented in our graphic by bricks set solidly upon the bedrock of the Natural Law of our Unalienable Rights. These 17 laws were considered to be the limited responsibilities of a national government formed to protect our rights and the safety of our country.

Add 17 bricks above the Bedrock layer, with the following words, written in bold below.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution defines the duties of Congress, which were the first federal laws:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing [copyright and patents] for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy; 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the [establish the] Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [federal laws and powers] the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That's it, according to our Constitution. But, before long, there was an argument between the Founders. James Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, insisted that the power of the Federal government should be severely limited by these 17 responsibilities. Alexander Hamilton, who became the first Secretary of the Treasury, wanted a stronger, more powerful central government, and thought the representatives should be able to pass any law they thought would help the people. 

You might be wondering how many Federal Laws we have now - how many things our government is supposed to do and we are expected to obey as citizens of the United States. That answer can be found on an official government website of the Library of Congress - loc.gov. According to this website we now have too many federal laws to count. And every one of them requires tax-payer money to enforce while it limits our freedom in some way. 

Do you agree more with James Madison, who wanted fewer federal laws and more individual freedom, or Alexander Hamilton, who wanted more federal laws to govern the people? Think of it this way: as you get older, would you like your parents to give you more rules to follow, or fewer rules? Would you like someone else to rule you, or would you prefer to rule yourself?

A Peek Into the Altered State of Denial

Jonah Goldberg is a semantic samurai. He uses words as expertly as a Benihana sushi ninja uses knives.

Today, on Fox News Special Report, he accused Brett Baier of assuming Trump and his followers used the same "Earth-Logic" as normal people.

He's right! The Trump Cult occupies an alternate universe, where facts are denied with vulgar vigor and the vacuous many words of very terrific nonsense uttered by their fearlessly feckless leader inspires unsubstantiated confidence and delusional devotion.

Charles Lane, another guest on today's Special Report, cited the recent Washington Post interview with Donald Trump: Trump's Interview is Totally Bananas, to describe the candidate's incoherency, but added that his supporters just "don't care!"

Why don't they care? Why aren't Trumpians embarrassed by the buffoon they adore? Surely, they have recovered from their initial crush on the man who "tapped into their anger" and "connected with the common man". Certainly, by now, they've all seen someone pull back the curtain to reveal the little man working the levers to manufacture the big-headed Wizard no one is allowed to criticize. Yet they live in a state of denial.

They're like...pod people. And according to Jonah Goldberg, the threat is spreading like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Even respected colleagues are not immune: "What I can’t get my head around is how other people can listen to [Trump's answers] and hear something substantive or serious. I truly don’t understand it. Or maybe I do understand it, and I just don’t want to because I don’t like what it might say about a lot of people I respect."

Consider the evidence: "if you listen to Trump’s answers to almost any question about how he will fix a problem, he uses up the first 95 percent of his time explaining, re-explaining and demagoguing about how bad the problem is. (That is, if he’s not talking about polls.) Then in the last few seconds, he says we’ll fix the problem by being really smart or by winning or by hiring the best people. In other words, he has no idea how to fix it." But he'll berate and humiliate anyone who dares challenge his superiority.

Recently Ted Cruz correctly identified Trump's bizarre behavior as "Projection" - a defense mechanism of the subconscious that allows the perpetrator to accuse an enemy of the very character flaws in himself or his hero, in order to maintain the higher ground of attack and preserve esteem. 

This is the man who bragged that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose a single supporter. 

Worse, this leading Republican Presidential candidate fits the description of a dangerous cult leader: “They all have or had an over-abundant belief that they were special, that they and they alone had the answers to problems, and that they had to be revered. They demanded perfect loyalty from followers, they overvalued themselves and devalued those around them, they were intolerant of criticism, and above all they did not like being questioned or challenged. And yet, in spite of these less than charming traits, they had no trouble attracting those who were willing to overlook these features.” - from Dangerous Cult Leaders, by Joe Navarro, M.A.

Trump's candidacy is not merely embarrassing, it's insane.

Ready for a Revolution?

Sometimes books are like stepping-stones in a significant journey. I wouldn’t be surprised if, someday, I describe my life as B.D. and A.D.

B.D. refers to before I was convicted that Deuteronomy 6:1-7 could be the trumpet call of a revolution to claim our land for God’s glory. A.D describes the excitement I had after realizing that this same passage of Scripture continues to offer God’s promise to stake His claim in a land whose families take His Word seriously.

Deuteronomy 6:1-7 promises that God’s people will successfully possess a land that He blesses in which parents love God with their entire beings, obey Him in all things and accept the responsibility for teaching this to their own children as a way of life.

When You Rise Up, by R.C. Sproul Jr., and Critique of Modern Youth Ministry, by Christopher Schlect, both cite Deuteronomy 6:1-7 as God’s idea of true education. Mr. Sproul admits that the Bible is the primary curriculum for his home-schooled children. As I meditated on this idea, several questions arose in my mind: If the Bible is God’s Word – Truth with a capital T – why on earth do so many Christian parents send their children to schools that teach everything but the Truth? 

In the face of so many indications of the failure of the public school system, why do our churches imitate it by segregating ages and employing a youth minister to do our job? Mr. Schlect makes me wonder how we got to the point in history when we accept and encourage our children to attend humiliating games at the church every Wednesday evening in order to bribe them to listen to scriptural teaching from recent seminary graduates or Young Life leaders, instead of studying the Word together under the direction of the spiritual head of the Christian home – the father.

The revolution I envision would be a quiet, calm one, consisting of millions of Christian fathers pulling their children out of schools and youth ministries to educate their own children in righteousness at home, with the enthusiastic encouragement of their wives. Only then, I believe, will our nation and world enjoy the abundant blessings God longs to pour out on every land.

In 1998, the small Christian private school my daughter, Ellen, was attending announced that they would be closing. My daughter's teacher pulled me aside and encouraged me to transition to homeschooling. I had been an active volunteer and had proved my commitment to engaged education. 

My son, being over 10 years older, had graduated from a private Christian school we enrolled him in when we moved to Texas in 1986. Homeschooling was unchartered territory for me, so I followed the prescribed path: purchasing pre-packaged curriculum from Bob Jones University Press. Ellen had tested above 4th grade at age 9, so when the 5th grade package arrived, we were all excited. 

It didn't take long, though, for my daughter to ask, "Mom, why do I have to learn stuff that strangers think are important?" Um... Since I didn't have a logical answer to that, I compromised - convincing my husband that I could easily design appropriate curriculum for our daughter without the added cost.

Imagine my chagrin when, after a few weeks, Ellen asked, "Mom, why do I have to learn stuff that you think is important?" Oy. I could see that I was raising a rebel. But it didn't have to be a bad thing. I investigated the concept of Unschooling, which some of the families in our Homeschool Co-op were doing. With encouragement from others who had gone before, I plunged in with both feet - actually 6 feet: mine, my doubtful husband's, and my daughter's.

First, came Deschooling. My unschooling friends recommended it with gusto. So, I told my daughter that she would be responsible for directing her own education. She had become a baptized believer at age 7, and shown obvious indication of the influence of the Holy Spirit. The decision to begin unschooling coincided with a conviction that by controlling her lessons, I was usurping the direct influence of the Spirit.

Ellen spent the next few weeks watching a lot of television. I spent the next few weeks doing a lot of praying. And my husband spent the next few weeks doing a lot of worrying.

Then, one day, my daughter came to me and said, "TV is boring. The stories are all the same." Breakthrough! Thankfully, I believe that those weeks of prayer had prepared me to answer her questions with another: "So, what would you like to do now, Honey?" She answered, "I want my own library card." And we were off!

Ellen spent her days researching topics that interested her, keeping a Learning Journal (amazingly every topic fit neatly into a schooling subject - sarcasm intended), and sharing her discoveries with me over our shared lunch. I was doing my own studies and our luncheon conversations were a pleasure. Of course, we also had plenty of time for volunteer community service and recreation. 

Ellen, separated from her grandparents by many hundreds of miles, hungered for a relationship with an elder. It didn't take long to find an opportunity to teach English to recently immigrated Eastern European elder Jews at our local synagogue. When the director invited us to join the community program, I admitted to her that we were Christians. She said that was no problem at all. For the next 6 years, my daughter and I visited the synagogues at least once a week. Before long, Ellen had her own group to tutor. I still recall the way these senior citizens' eyes would light up every time Ellen walked in the room. We were invited to all of their celebrations, including their Jewish festivals. Once, Ellen was the youngest in the room during the Pesach service, so the Rabbi asked her to participate in the response ceremony, in which a child will ask questions of the Jewish elders to retell the story of Passover. One of Ellen's good friends was a sweet Jewish man in his 90s, known as Shuggie Cohen (he has since passed on).

When Ellen was 15, I recommended that she study the T.A.S.P. (Texas Academic Skills Program) used by our local community college to determine acceptance and placement. She did fine in all subjects (excelling in Language Arts), except for Math. Her counselor admitted, "Don't worry - everyone fails the Math part," (making me wonder why they didn't change the test). After obtaining her Associate's Degree, Ellen decided against pursuing a B.A., afraid that the curriculum would stunt her learning. She was hired as one of the first employees at a Texas Trader Joe's, and still works for that company. 

I raised a rebel. And I'm proud of it. 

Send in the Clowns

There's a new reality show on TV.

Five contestants must fight for the same job. They have to race around the country doing tasks that earn points from the audience.

The oldest contestant worked as a psychiatric aide, carpenter, erotica writer and town mayor. He thinks all the show's viewers should buy big screen TVs for their less fortunate neighbors so they can vote for him, too. Wacko!

Another contestant lies lies about her accomplishments and demands special treatment. She's very sweet when the cameras are on, but her teammates worry that her radical ambitions are putting their safety at risk. They call her the "Diva of Danger".

One guy thinks he should win because he is the richest, but he expects everyone else to do all the work and demeans them for not doing it as well as he could, so no one wants him on their team. I've nicknamed him "The Bully".

The contestant with the fewest points spends all his time going around to tell all the others that he should be the winner anyway, because his last job makes him most qualified, even though the audience clearly considers him delusional.

The last contestant is nicknamed "The Gentleman" because he memorized all the game rules and doesn't try to sabotage the others. He's not very exciting, but he's always polite and he's the one all the others go to for advice.

Have you seen the show?
It's called Presidential Election 2016.

The media haven't been this giddy since the last season of The Bachelor. According to the talking heads, this campaign is the most contentious in our nation's history. 

Not by a long shot.

Let's take a stroll down memory lane, back to the Election of 1828, noteworthy for the intense personal attacks widely employed by the supporters of both candidates. Andrew Jackson was challenging incumbent John Quincy Adams. 

"By the time the votes were cast, both men would have wild stories circulated about their pasts, with lurid charges of murder, adultery, and procuring of women being plastered across the pages of partisan newspapers. In 1827 supporters in both the Adams and Jackson camps began concerted efforts to undermine the character of the opponent. Even though the two candidates had strong differences on substantial issues, the resulting campaign turned out to be based on personalities and tactics which were outrageously underhanded." 

Sound familiar? Oh, it gets better.

"Supporters of Andrew Jackson began spreading a rumor that Adams, while serving as American ambassador to Russia, had procured an American girl for the sexual services of the Russian czar. The attack was no doubt baseless, but the Jacksonians delighted in it, even calling Adams a 'pimp' and claiming that procuring women explained his great success as a diplomat."

John Quincy Adams was so offended by the false accusations that he refused to write in his diary from August 1828 until after the election. He refused to get involved with the dirty campaign tactics. "Jackson, on the other hand, was so furious about the attacks on himself and his wife that he got more involved. He wrote to newspaper editors giving them guidelines on how attacks should be countered and how their own attacks should proceed." 

Everything old is new again, I guess.

These opponents had challenged each other in 1824, but neither had won the requisite number of electoral votes. John Quincy Adams pulled out a tenuous victory in the House of Representatives, known as "The Corrupt Bargain", in which House Speaker Henry Clay invested his considerable influence to secure the win for Adams.  

Andrew Jackson, already famous for his temper, was furious. "And when John Quincy Adams named Henry Clay to be his secretary of state, Jackson denounced the election as 'the corrupt bargain.' Many assumed Clay sold his influence to Adams so he could be secretary of state and thus increase his own chance of being president someday." Jackson resigned his Senate seat and returned to Tennessee to jump-start his campaign for the next election.

Jackson rode the wave of populism, with his appeal to the "common folk",  and he handily won the popular vote and the electoral vote, becoming the first Democratic President, effectively separating from the historic Democratic-Republican platform orginating with James Madison.

Jackson could be described as the angriest man to ever serve as president, participating in countless fights, many of which turned violent. Near the end of his term, he reportedly said his only regret was that he hadn't been able to "shoot Henry Clay and hang John C. Calhoun." These, my friends, are the roots of the Democratic Party.

Unless you're blind, the simililarities to the 2016 Election are blatantly obvious. Ted Cruz represents the Republican statesman, John Q. Adams, while Donald Trump exemplifes the hot-headed Democrat, Andrew Jackson, much too well. 

History. Those who refuse to study it comdemn the rest of us to foolishly repeat all the worst bits. 

Let's avoid that, shall we? This contest looks like it's headed for a controversial Republican Convention. (No wonder Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, is becoming the character actor that just might steal the show.) 

While we are vigorously campaigning for our favored candidate, let's also work to change the trajectory of future politics by defusing the bombast. 

Historical precedence paints a bleak picture: Donald Trump, loses this contentious election, steeps in his bitterness, foments revenge among his beloved "poorly educated" cult followers and wins the next election, as a Democratic Republican, fueled by relentless pique. I can hear the Establishment and media rejoicing in anticipation. 

We are at a crossroads. Will we forge a path back to Conservative Constitutionalism in order to restore our Republic, or will we, like the electorate in 1828, plead for bread and circuses? 

For some reason, I have this old song in my head: 

Don't you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want -
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.

Don't bother, they're here.

- Stephen Sondheim

Read more at: The Election of 1828 Was Marked by Dirty Tactics 

I'm a Prayer

It all started with crop circles.

On our weekly trip to the public library for my unschooled daughter to borrow her limit of 50 books, I spotted a book by Freddy Silva, entitled Secrets in the Fields, the Science and Mysticism of Crop Circles.  Now, I consider this to be the Crop Circle Bible.

I spent the next 6 months studying this book (I purchased my own copy), as well as anything else I could obtain that explained quantum physics and mechanics, the electromagnetic spectrum, spiritual energy and metaphysics.

Before long, I had made an astounding connection: if the quantum mechanics of the electromagnetic spectrum is eternal - that is, energy, once created by an immortal Consciousness that energized nothing into something, has no end - and everything is a product of Light (very biblical!), then our thoughts and prayers hold eternal power to change reality. We're ridin' the Wave, Baby!

So, I wrote as fast as I could, putting those ephemeral thoughts on paper. I consider it my opus. Find it here, if you'd like to read it: Superstring Theory in Seven Dimensions - a Quantum Physics Approach to Prayer

Since then, I have lived with the knowledge beyond faith that God is real, my consciousness is a part of the Whole, everything is eternal and prayer is more powerful than most believers will ever admit.

photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/27783931@N00/358169034">Firefox Crop Circle</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">(license)</a>

Our Nation's Foundation Lessons Introduction

When half of Democrat voters choose an avowed Socialist, and a majority of Republican voters support a blustering business mogul, we have a problem.

While we Conservatives were lamenting the success of Obama's "transformational" reign, praying for a true Conservative Constitutionalist, and celebrating the ascension of Senator Ted Cruz, the general population was wallowing in cultural depravity and political ignorance.

Decades of Educational negligence has accomplished it's goal: a citizenry easily manipulated for the purposes of the Progressive Establishment. Our Founders, loathe to legislate such federal control of the daily lives of the populace, insisted on promoting Education: "Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution granted Congress the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States. It is under this “general welfare” clause that the federal government has assumed the power to initiate educational activity in its own right and to participate jointly with states, agencies and individuals in educational activities." The History of Federal Government in Public Education

Most public schools, from the beginning our nation's history, prioritized Reading, Writing, Ciphering (practical math), Bible literacy and Civics, because our forefathers (and foremothers) knew that moral, educated citizens were vital to the survival and success of our Constitutional Republic.

For the past few generations, the "experts" have implemented every new-fangled "improvement" to Education at the expense of moral and civic study. Now, we have unruly, disrespectful students who will argue with teachers who tell them that our nation is a Constitutional Republic, and not a Democracy.

After Barack Hussein Obama was re-elected in 2012, in spite of his dismal failures in foreign policy, domestic economics, and race relations (all part of his plan to "transform" the country), I committed myself to teaching Constitutional principles to the 5th and 6th graders I serve as a paraprofessional campus Librarian.

I developed a lesson plan called "Our Nation's Foundations", in which I build a giant graphic on the wall depicting founding principles of our Constitutional Republic.

In following articles of this series, I will provide the lessons I use in my public school library to teach Intermediate school students what they are risk of losing. Please bookmark conservativepushcoalition.com and check back frequently for future lessons. Print them out, or copy and paste them into document files and save to your computer for future reference. Share them with as many people as you can.

Please find a way to use any or all of these lessons to teach the next generation how to be informed and involved citizens of the United States. Volunteer at your local school, host a Summer Patriot Club in your neighborhood, teach your own children and grandchildren.

Our nation's future depends on it.

Latest Reality TV Show

There's a new reality show on TV.

Five contestants must fight for the same job. They have to race around the country doing tasks that earn points from the audience.

The oldest contestant worked as a psychiatric aide, carpenter, erotica writer and town mayor. He thinks all the show's viewers should buy big screen TVs for their less fortunate neighbors so they can vote for him, too. Wacko!

Another contestant lies lies about her accomplishments and demands special treatment. She's very sweet when the cameras are on, but her teammates worry that her radical ambitions are putting their safety at risk. They call her the "Diva of Danger".

One guy thinks he should win because he is the richest, but he expects everyone else to do all the work and demeans them for not doing it as well as he could, so no one wants him on their team. I've nicknamed him "The Bully".

The contestant with the fewest points spends all his time going around to tell all the others that he should be the winner anyway, because his last job makes him most qualified, even though the audience clearly considers him delusional.

The last contestant is nicknamed "The Gentleman" because he memorized all the game rules and doesn't try to sabotage the others. He's not very exciting, but he's always polite and he's the one all the others go to for advice.

Have you seen the show?
It's called Presidential Election 2016.

Demagogues vs. Ideologues

Hillary Clinton is a demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. She uses Progressive ideas and policies to further her own ambitions. She flip-flops with more vigor than a fish out of water. What does she believe? It depends on the audience she's addressing. Her supporters love her because she cares.

Hillary's List of Flip-Flops

Bernie Sanders is an idealogue: one who is intensely or excessively devoted to a cause. He believes Democratic Socialism is better than Republican Capitalism (the political-economic system defined by our Consitution). His followers are dedicated to him because, in their ignorance, they mistakenly believe that a free market gutted by decades of Progressive policies is an inherently inferior system. 

Donald Trump is a demagogue. His political platform consists of Me, Myself and I. The egotistical bluster and populist generalities serve as a backdrop to his repertoir of put-downs and angry rhetoric, creating the perfect climate for violent protests. 

Ted Cruz is an idealogue. He memorized the Constitution in 8th grade. His education and career has been dedicated to his commitment to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". His life is intensely devoted to restoring our Republic.

Is a demogogue worth your support? Are the whims of a populist worth your vote? Are the ambitions of a celebrity worth the next four or eight years of our future?

I'm a Patriot. A demogogue is not worthy of my consideration, my efforts, my donations, or my ballot.
I choose an ideologue who shares my principles and my prayers for my nation. I choose Cruz.

Blasphemy or Brilliance?

I haven't attended church in many years. I leave them or they leave me.

One church banished me because I was living with my fiancé. We had planned to get married there, but they kicked us out. Ironic.

I left another church because it was obviously under God's judgment and I didn't want to go up in flames with it. I had begged the elders to make a corporate call to repentance, committed in my Spirit to be the first woman to come forward, but I was told that they didn't consider it to be something they would ever deem necessary. 

I challenged the pastor of a church who wanted to preach against the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, based on the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis. Ministers all across the country were being told to advise their congregations to shun the movie because of it's blasphemy. When I heard this, I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper, lamenting the censure based on misconceptions. Pastors had received a short clip from the movie, depicting Jesus falling asleep with his head on the chest of Peter, after they had engaged in an emotional argument. By reading the book, or watching the entire movie, or having a passing familiarity with Nikos Kazantzakis - an earthy Greek author - anyone would understand that the purpose of this scene was to describe the forgiveness and restoration between them. The pastor saw my letter to the editor and invited me to tell him about the story. I visited with him, telling him that I had read all books published by Kazantzakis, and had read The Last Temptation of Christ several times and it had enhanced my faith.  I lent him my copy so he could make an informed judgment. Imagine my surprise during the special evening service in which he told us that no Christian should watch this movie because it contained blasphemy. That was the last time I attended.

Years later, I left another church after being asked to lead their Women's Prayer Class. I had just finished writing a thesis about how the quantum mechanics of the electromagnetic spectrum proves the existence of God and the power of prayer. The Women's Ministry Director was skeptical, so I sent her my manuscript. Upon our face to face meeting, she withdrew the offer for me to lead the prayer class and admonished me to reconsider the connection between science and faith. My answer was, "If I can't find Christ in everything I study, then he's a liar. And if this church can't find God in Science, then your God is too small for me."

The Definition of Hero

On March 16, 2016, President Obama introduced Cecile Richards as a "superhero" for her work in "women's health".

Cecile Richards is the President of the Planned Parenthood Federation and Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She defended the practice of dismembering bodies of pre-born babies and the "donation" of their body parts to research labs for generous "fees". "The abortion business CEO tried to turn Planned Parenthood into the victim after it was caught at multiple abortion clinics offering aborted baby parts for sale and further victimizing the unborn children it already victimizes in abortions. 'Given this current environment and the hostility that some of the extremists have and their willingness to kind of go to these depths to shame doctors, it’s very tough,' she complained." - from LifeNews.com

She unapologetically revealed that she had an abortion because a fourth child would have been inconvenient.

The definition of the word "hero" is "a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities." Historically, a hero is known for his or her sacrificial commitment to save others from danger. This does not define Cecile Richards.

President Obama described her as a "superhero"! The dictionary defines a superhero as "a benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers." Again, this hardly fits Ms. Richards and her activism, unless our President would admit that it would take superhuman powers to condone and promote acts of barbarism that include killing humans in the womb, cutting them into pieces and selling them. Too bad people like Cecile aren't fictional. Then, we could write her character right out of our national story. Sadly, even our Congressional representatives are confused, because even after the shocking expose'they "easily passed an omnibus spending bill that fully funds Planned Parenthood." - from LifeSite News

Ironically, "The Harris County [Texas] grand jury indicted [investigative videographers] David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, both of California, on charges of tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony with a possible sentence of up to 20 years in prison. It also charged Daleiden, the leader of the videographers, with the same misdemeanor he had alleged – the purchase or sale of human organs, presumably because he had offered to buy in an attempt to provoke Planned Parenthood employees into saying they would sell."  - from The Houston Chronicle. These were the heroes of this macabre tale, but in the era of Barack Obama, they are transformed into the villains - proving we live in a jabberwocky world. 

Apparently, this new Orwellian society that has been forced upon us needs a new dictionary and a thesaurus, because we're confusing synonyms for antonyms and sacrificing the very soul of our nation.

Compromising with Wrong

Like many words during the past eight years, the term "compromise" has been redefined by the Obama administration to mean, "We don't give up until you give in." This position, coupled with their blatant lies happily disseminated by the mainstream media, unjustly painting Conservatives as haters, results in sliding the Overton Window further Leftward. Progressives, defining their very name, have learned the trick of asking for a pony and receiving a kitten, even when We the Parents didn't want a pet at all. That's not compromise, that's surrender.

The historical meaning of "compromise" is this: While shopping for a second car, I want a blue Subaru, but my husband wants a gray Honda. True compromise might result in purchasing a blue Honda or a gray Subaru. Democrats' idea of a compromise means we come home with a camel, because they are "better for the environment" and "it's not fair that you can afford a car and others can't".

And the Republicans We the Tea Party sent to Washington to stop this foolishness accepted this new definition because they were afraid of being called names.

As I write this, I'm listening to Mark Davis on 660 The Answer call "#NeverTrump" adherents "cultish", declaring they have "blood on their hands" for pledging to stay home if Trump and Clinton are the choices at the ballot box. Hyperventilate much?

I, and many others have calmly decided not to compromise when we cast our vote for President. This is a bad thing? Ted Cruz has been my choice from the beginning because he is a consistent, Conservative Constitutionalist who knows and honors the founding principle of the Rule of Law - since the job of a President is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." If Rubio had been our nominee, I would have gladly compromised and voted for him to help block a Hillary Presidency, because Rubio is a Conservative Republican and true Patriot. That's what true compromise looks like. 

If Trump is the nominee, I will not be derelict in my duty as a citizen by voting for someone who has no track record of Conservatism or Constitutionalism, but has consistently demonstrated a dangerous egotism, erratic self-control, vulgar vitriol, and self-serving pronouncements. Isn't that how we got into the mess we have now?! No thank you.

I refuse to confess to my grandchildren that I compromised my principles by voting for Donald Trump.

America Awakens

In between teaching 5th and 6th graders about our Constitution, and shelving books, I catch snatches of broadcasts by WBAP in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex as it plays in the background of my school library office.

Last month, Hal Jay was interviewing the Southern Baptist Convention President, Ronnie Floyd. In the context of the current Presidential campaign, Pastor Floyd revealed that every conservative movement has been preceded by a spiritual awakening in our nation.

Reading internet articles about Mr. Floyd makes it clear that his focus is on Christian Conservatism - a devout return to the foundational principles of Biblical faith, and the practice of Christ-like love and sacrificial service.

But Hal Jay seemed to be connecting it with the political conservatism wrought by the Tea Party Movement that began in 2009. Or maybe I just had politics on my brain. Regardless, I've been much more aware of the connection between this election and the spiritual trajectory of our country. I started praying for our nation just before the events of September 11, 2001. I could feel the looming crisis in my spirit. The events on that day and since then seemed like birth-pangs of a much-needed spiritual revival that I prayed would be the catalyst for restoring our Republic.

Not unlike wandering in the wilderness of spiritual rebellion, our nation has forsaken it's first love. Like a crumbling old mansion, we the owners have neglected the upkeep of the bedrock of Unalienable Rights, the Foundation of the Rule of Law, the Pillars of Constitutional Principles, and a government guarded by Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances that ensure our Liberties, including the freedom to live out a powerful, re-energized faith that blesses the world.

Our nation's historians differ on how many Great Awakenings we've experienced. Some say the Third Great Awakening happened during the Jesus Movement of the 1970s. As a participant of that Jesus Movement, and choosing Ronald Reagan as my first vote for President, I can't deny the supernatural connection. At age 16, I experienced a miraculous event that confirmed God's claim on my soul. I read the entire works of Nikos Kazantzakis, from his "blasphemous" metaphysical quest in Saviors of God to his final opus, The Last Temptation of Christ, which revealed his own transformation in Christ. Simultaneously, I read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand - an athiest Objectivist. During my semester of high school Constitution study, my teacher told me I should become a Constitutional lawyer. Coincidences? I don't believe in them.

I'd barely survived the administration of Jimmy Carter as my mother was dying from alcoholism. Governor Reagan was a beacon of hope and restoration to our state, and ultimately our nation. My great awakening was a work of Providence that would define my path forward. Yet, the Jesus Movement was not acknowledged as a political movement resulting from national spiritual revival, nor did it culminate in an effective paradigm shift in in our country's morality. Perhaps the true Third Great Awakening is yet to come.

How could I deny that our Founders experienced something similar - something currently familiar? George Washington was an icon of the faith and hope the colonists identified in their quest for true Independence - a Providential work in their lives and land - a Great Political Awakening. Many recognize the same hero of restoration in Ted Cruz. It should surprise no one that there are multiple Facebook prayer groups for Senator Cruz, his Presidential candidacy, and the future of our nation.

The "fundamental transformation" accomplished by President Obama, coupled with the advent of a candidate like Donald Trump, who has managed to snatch away a sure victory from Senator Cruz by putting on a traveling medicine show of bloviating bluster and vulgar vitriol offered as a panacea for pent up anger, just may be the catalyst to awaken us all - either to personal and patriotic repentance and restoration, or to further division and destruction.

Misdirected Fears of Theocracy

"Seven Mountain Dominionism!"

I hadn't even heard of it until Trump supporters dug deep into the well of conspiracy theories to create a distraction from their own candidate's immorality.

"Rafael Cruz and Larry Huch preach a brand of evangelical theology called Seven Mountains Dominionism. They believe Christians must take dominion over seven aspects of culture:  family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. The name of the movement comes from Isaiah 2:2: 'Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains.'"  (Note it does not say Ted Cruz is a proponent.) Source: Seven Mountain Dominionism

Ted's dad believes that his son will help bring Judeo-Christian foundations back to America. Oh, the horror!

Actions speak louder than words - even those words spreading like a virus on the internet. Ted Cruz has never exhibited any tendencies of a Theocrat. He has no intention of forcing every citizen to become a Christian. He does, however, believe that the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nation are vital for the restoration of our Republic. I agree. Our Constitution, coupled with the godly morality is a force for good that has blessed the whole world. The last eight years of deceptive and worldly administration that has replaced the Rule of Law and the Golden Rule with Rule of Man and wealth redistribution has magnified the need for a return to Biblical foundations. 

Pastors Endorse Cruz

The reason "Progressive" leaders can trade our unalienable rights for Socialist oppression is because we have forgotten our submission to a Creator. The whims of Man has replaced the true blessings of obedience to God. Only Judeo-Christian faith and foundations can support the radical Liberty inherent under a Constitutional Republic. By chipping away at these pillars of principles, Progressives weaken the resistance against a political Authoritarianism that promises a false sense of "security" in exchange for our freedoms. 

Astoundingly, those who are leveling the charge that Ted will rule the nation like a old-testament king, are Trump supporters! Oh, the irony. Because Donald is the paradigm of "true Christianity" don'tcha know? And, just because he's ruled as Monarch over his Corporate Kingdom (his wife is quoted as saying he must rule like a General at work, to keep his people in line), his fans believe that Trump's moral foundations are so much loftier than Ted's, because he says so!

According to psychologists, this behavior is labeled "Projection", and is another indication of cult-follower mentality, in which the failings of their own authoritarian leader is projected onto a foil they can attack. 

Trust me, Trumpets, Ted Cruz is not campaigning as a Cult Leader. That role is already taken. 

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

I'm ashamed of my fellow Republican voters. We've complained for over seven years about the current President working tirelessly to divide the American people. Obama has taken advantage of every opportunity to alienate us by race, economic status and rule of law.

Instead of capitalizing on the righteous indignation of true Patriots by championing a consistent Conservative Constitutionalist to restore our Republic, droves of Republican voters are endorsing a Populist corporate mogul whose campaign strategy is to whip up the fury of his followers by entertaining them with ugly personal attacks on his opponents.

Do Trump supporters realize that they are trading one Divider-in-Chief for another? While Ted Cruz is answering the call of We the People to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution", Donald Trump demands an oath of allegience from his cult followers.

Ted Cruz, a hero of the truly Conservative Tea Party movement, has worked in the Senate and run his Presidential campaign on the platform of Restoring our Republic, while Trump promotes Rallies of Revenge.

When Cruz is challenged, his response is to consult and empower the Rule of Law under the Constitution. When Trump is challenged, his response is to consult his ego and ridicule his detractors. What will he do when the Legislature, Judiciary, or foreign adversary thwart his grandiose plans? It's too easy to imagine him sidestepping the restrictions of our system of Checks and Balances and legislate his plans by fiat, just like Obama, but with more vitriol.

We had the perfect opportunity to unite behind the ideal antidote to the "fundamental transformation" of our nation. Instead, we've been divided by the the appalling vulgarities of an ego-driven usurper, forever tainting the Grand Old Party with the stain of incivility.

You'd think there was a conscious plot to divide and conquer.

Ignorance is Fatal

We've all seen them - "The Man on the Street" interviews displaying woeful ignorance of U.S. History and Civics.

Who is our Nation's Capitol Named For?

We shouldn't be surprised that we're so close to losing our Constitutional Republic. We're not paying attention. No one is minding the store! The people we've sent to Washington, D.C. to represent us are free to do whatever they like because the electorate isn't holding them accountable.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A Republic is only as safe as the restraints placed upon it by its citizens. We the People have not protected the Limited Government our Constitution proscribes because the majority of us are ignorant of Constitutional principles!

So, because we didn't do our job to restrain government, many of us are angry. You'd think this would be a wake-up call to commit ourselves to electing the most consistent, Conservative Constitutionalist for President.

Sadly, ignorance is a two-edged sword, hacking our Republic to pieces. Instead of being informed and educated enough to unite behind Ted Cruz, many voters are choosing to support the Angry Populist.

Unfortunately, Trump is not equipped to restore our Constitutional Republic. He is neither a statesman nor a Constitutionalist. His bullying and bluster won't get much traction on Capitol Hill, nor with our allies and enemies.

But this detail matters not to an electorate who can't identify the person our nation capitol was named for, or how many senators their state is granted. Too many seem content to replace a Progressive Populist Divider in Chief with a Corporate Populist Divider in Chief.

What's in a Name?

An African-American co-worker and friend of mine admitted that an online political test categorized her philosophies as "Conservative", which surprised her. I told her it is not uncommon to become more conservative with maturity.

A young man I've met recently expresses frustration at being challenged by his teachers to defend his Conservatism, resenting the fact that no students are ever challenged for being Progressive.

Are Conservatism and Liberalism just equally acceptable choices? (Obviously not to Progressive teachers!) Is it like preferring a car to a pickup, or an apartment to a house? It's not like there's a good or bad choice, right?

Wrong.

The definition of a Conservative is a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

The definition of a Progressive is a person favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal political ideas.

We live in the United States. Our nation was founded on a Constitution of Limited Government and Individual Reponsibility. If you don't want to "preserve, protect and defend" it - "conserve" it, in other words, then you are in the wrong country.

The intent and active plan of a citizen to overturn or sabotage a nation's government is called TREASON.

If you don't like our Judeo/Christian Foundations, Traditional Values and Republican Principles, you're in the wrong country. If your goal is to fundamentally transform the Foundations, Values and Principles of the United States, you are a traitor to your country. Move to a country that embraces Liberalism, Progressivism and Socialism or find a patch of land and start your own.

We were bequeathed a Constitutional Republic, and we intend to keep it.