A Nation Divided Against Itself Can Not Stand! Part 1

Tags

Americans, change, Conservatives, constitution, Cruz, democrats, divisions, election 2016, Founders, history, Liberals, obama, Republicans, Trump

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

It’s written in the Bible (Mark 3:24-25), and it is the foundation of one of President Abraham Lincoln’s most important speeches.

On June 16, 1858 more than 1,000 delegates met in the Springfield, Illinois, statehouse for the Republican State Convention. At 5:00 p.m. they chose Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the U.S. Senate, running against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. At 8:00 p.m. Lincoln delivered this address to his Republican colleagues in the Hall of Representatives. The title reflects part of the speech’s introduction, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” a concept familiar to Lincoln’s audience as a statement by Jesus recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). House Divided Speech, Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858. Read more HERE.

Decades later, running on a platform that publicly declared his intention to “fundamentally change America,” against the wishes of millions of Americans, President Obama has succeeded in is goal to piece by piece dismantle and disrespect the very foundation of our nation: our Constitution and the rule of law.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

A Historical background via Obama the Great Divider, by J. Robert Smith

 “Throughout our nation’s history, division has been the rule; unity, the exception.  That goes back to the Revolution.  When it was clear to the Founders and outraged colonists that the British had no interest in redressing their grievances, they elected to divide, to fight for independence.

“Lucky for us and the world that they chose to do so. 

“Today, many Americans aren’t acquainted with the fact that colonists weren’t unanimous for independence.  A sizeable minority — Tories — backed the Crown.  They supported British troops and some fought alongside them. 

“The nation’s early, formative political era was marked by sharp divisions.  Federalists versus Jeffersonians.  Pro-Jackson versus Anti-Jackson factions.  Disputes over slavery were ongoing.  There was a whiskey rebellion and another war with the British.

“By the mid 1800s, the nation divided into sections and fought a civil war.  That, assuredly, was a tragic division.  620,000 military casualties, north and south, say so.  A ravaged South and a depleted North say so, too. 

“But as Lincoln stated, the war came, despite efforts at reconciliation.  The good that resulted from the war was the abolition of slavery.  And though it would take another hundred years, and yet more divisions and trials, abolition set African-Americans on the path to gaining their full God-given rights.  

“In the 20^th Century, Americans divided about other wars as well.  World Wars I and II, Vietnam and the Iraq War.  Toward the end, they divided about the Cold War.  

“And they’ve divided about the New Deal, the Fair Deal, The Great Society and the Reagan Revolution.  They’ve divided culturally, starting in the 1960s, over drugs, sex and rock and roll.  They’ve divided over abortion.

“As we look back over the long arc of the nation’s history, we see that from divisions came resolutions.  Freedom, more often than not, was advanced.  Our rights better secured.  Our nation, strengthened.   

“We live in a time of momentous divisions.  Many of us will not live to see the resolutions completely.  Since the early part of the 20^th Century, a great conflict has not only been playing out abroad, but at home, between statism and freedom. 

“At home, the statists – call them progressives, liberals or leftists – have worked diligently to advance government, to centralize authority in a political elite and bureaucracy and to, thereby, abridge the rights of the individual.  They dismiss the original intent that undergirds the Constitution, claiming a right to make interpretations that are frequently aimed at pressing their causes and increasing their power.  Many disdain our values, faith and traditions.

“Where shall we find common ground with the statists?  Compromise?  Compromise must invariably lead to less, not more, freedom.  And wasn’t that tried by our parents’ and grandparents’ generations?  Aren’t we, in part, struggling against a looming tyranny – albeit a soft tyranny – because of the good will and accommodations of our predecessors? 

Though ideological opponents, these two responsible leaders were also friends.

“Note, too, that overseas, in the 20^th Century and now, tyrants, established or aspiring, all sought or seek unity.  Unity under their rule in the service of the state.  Inevitably, they use force to achieve that end.  Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot and an assortment of lesser dictators all bullied, imprisoned, maimed or killed millions who failed to unite with their will. 

“Today, the Castro brothers are still at it.  Hugo Chavez is attempting it in Venezuela.  The mullahs are at it in Iran.  Kim Jong-Il has been at it in North Korea.  So are the Chinese.  Putin isn’t far from reasserting unity in service to the Russian state. 

“In our nation, we are fortunate that the Founders had great insight into human nature and the wisdom to arrange our government in ways that divided and authority.   They instituted checks and balances to thwart the tyranny of any faction, or combination of factions, to impose unity on us. 

“In the last ninety years, the barriers erected by the Founders to protect us from the tyranny of unity have been breached.  But they still stand.  It falls to us to repair and strengthen those barriers.  To reclaim the full measure of freedom which is our birthright and was intended us by the Founders.  And pass on that freedom to our children and theirs.” Read more HERE

If you listen to both Hillary and Bernie, they are so angry, so victimized, so … dead set on the next chapter in the self-destruction of America, that cannot or will not change course. Even the “driveby” media has nothing good to say, nothing hopeful, nothing uplifting to point to in anything going on. MORE coming soon.

 

 

 

“What is the purpose of public education?”

Tags

a House divided against itself cannot stand, Americanism, citizenship, common ground, divisions, education, freedom, legal immigrants, melting pot, public school

The question is,”What is the purpose of public education?” That depends on who you ask.

“The purpose of education is to enable us to develop to the fullest that which is inside us” Norman Cousins, prominent political journalist, author and professor

“The purpose of education is to cultivate human minds with values and principles that help to distinguish between wrong and right. The purpose of education though has a much broader aspect which also entails learning skill for a certain area along with achieving overall development. While life passes education never ends, so education purpose entails a continuous change in direction.” (emphasis mine)

Horace Mann, commonly named the “Father of American Education,” “founded and edited The Common School Journal. In this journal, Mann targeted the public school and its problems. His six main principles were:

(1) the public should no longer remain ignorant;

(2) that such education should be paid for, controlled, and sustained by an interested public;

(3) that this education will be best provided in schools that embrace children from a variety of backgrounds;

(4) that this education must be non-sectarian;

(5) that this education must be taught by the spirit, methods, and discipline of a free society; and

(6) that education should be provided by well-trained, professional teachers.

Mann worked for more and better equipped school houses, longer school years (until 16 years old), higher pay for teachers, and a wider curriculum.”

The problem with today’s public education is that it generally fails in all six principles. Many of our high schools produce children who still cannot read with comprehension, write grammatically correct sentences, paragraphs, or  essays or solve basic math in life situations. Public school has been repeatedly and routinely dumbed down, especially over the last decade, to the lowest common denominator, and its original purpose: to prepare our children for a productive and responsible adult life, has been perverted to emphasize our differences rather than our common ground.

Parents are much busier in their own lives which means generally less involvement in their childrens’ educational process. In America’s early years, parents were actually fined if they were found slacking in the education of their children. Now, in essence, our children are being raised by the State which is not allowed to teach morals. Deposited in local daycares as early as 3 weeks old, many parents see their children long enough to feed them, bathe them, and tuck them into bed. Whose responsibility is it to see that your children are properly educated and prepared for adulthood?

In this era of political correctness, the American public is  told education must be all-inclusive across the board. That means ethnicity, race, religion, ability, and legal status, supposedly, don’t affect the availability or quality of education . As commonly happens, however, in the attempt to equalize that which is not equal by definition, the prevailing thought is seen to be “old-fashioned,” “too narrow,” “not appropriate for today’s youth,” or just idiotic.

“Because the way a people schools its children is so closely tied to how a people sees itself and its priorities,” history tells us that while once, it was “wishful thinking” for Americans to see themselves as the proverbial “melting pot,” a unified society, over the last decade, history seems to indicate that the “wishful thinking,” or perhaps the “social communism” taught in our schools today demonstrates a question of whether Americans still “wish”to be unified.”  from Public Education in America: Born in Unity; Endangered by Disunity

“If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.”

When public school was born, our nation was populated predominantly with legal immigrants from many nations far and wide. Public school was designed at that time to teach “Americanism!” It was supposed to even the ground so all knew the American way AND the American Dream. In complete contrast, now, Americanism is gone, and schools are sterilized lest anyone be “offended” at what might appear to be American. Some schools g so far as to disallow clothing or decals depicting the American flag.

Schools are supposed to teach by the spirit, methods, and discipline of a free America. Like,uh, no patriotic clothing or gear, no Christmas, no Christianity, but satanism is okay, Islam is okay, existentialism is okay, humanitarianism is okay … and of course, materialism is wonderful, but capitalism is EVIL. Education is taught from a liberal political perspective, especially in our colleges and universities, and all other thoughts are dismissed as absurd.

When public school was born, America was a young nation of legal immigrants in search of a better life. It became obvious quickly that with all the different nations, languages, religions and ethnicities involved, something had to be done to get everyone on the ame page, so to speak. Public school was born, not just to teach basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also Americanism … and even in some places, trades. Whether or not it began as a myth, it morphed into the reality many of us knew as children.

No longer are those basic academics taught adequately, but all that has been AMERICA is being scrubbed from the curriculum as well and replaced with certain bits and pieces of chosen cultures and doctrines, many of which are completely counter-American.

I asked this question before, now I ask again … Who are we, America?

E Pluribus Unum: Out of many, ONE

“A people only begins to discover conservatism when it becomes aware of something it has lost. By the mid-20th century, Americans knew they had lost their independence from the affairs of the old world, and they increasingly felt the loss of the culture and community that had defined their form of self-government. Now America was a nation of big business and even bigger government … Today the country pays the price for the left-wing ideologies that ran rampant in the 20th century and the right-wing, but not conservative, reaction that has only exacerbated the destruction wrought by the left. To solve the country’s seemingly intractable–and, in the long-term, lethal–strategic, economic, and socio-cultural problems requires a rediscovery of traditional conservatism.”

Do we still comprehend the meaning of FREEDOM?

Are we still …

the Land of the FREE and the home of the Brave?

Or have we been bought

by the promise of a lifetime vacation

with plenty of FREE goodies

paid for by … ?

AMERICA, who are we?

ADDITIONAL READING:

Public Education in America: Born in Unity; Endangered by Disunity

Who are We, America?

Who We Are

Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity