Stephen A. Emery
for pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-private enterprise, responsible immigration representation
. . . according to the Constitution as originally intended.
Please forward this website address.
Just eight men own as much wealth as 3.6 billion people–about half of the world population. In the United States, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett are wealthier than half of everyone else. The wealth of the top 1 percent surpasses $100 trillion which is more than the global GDP and all central bank balance sheets. Amassing this kind of wealth, and therefore power, in a few hands could not occur apart from the private corporation.
This kind of accumulation of wealth and power seems inequitable to many people, but it is not new. It would have seemed inequitable to the Founders of this nation too. They recognized that the corporation essentially is a tool to enslave the masses. They fought the Revolutionary/American War, in part, to free themselves from the private corporation—the East India Tea Company. The company rose to account for half of the world’s trade. The company subjugated the colonists economically and the Colonists’ response to it was the Boston Tea Party and then the War.
After the War, the Founders of this nation addressed this issue, and others, through the Title of Nobility Clauses (anti-nobility clauses ) in the Constitution to prevent economic slavery from reoccurring through the private corporation. The nobility of the British empire also were aware of the excesses of the private corporation and big government. Lord Acton captured the sentiment of the Founders in his statement that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. History supports his claim.
Government needs to be decentralized and economic/business activity needs to be decentralized too. The private corporation is a fictional creation (something that is false, but that is held to be true) of the government to limit liability, provide for a perpetual existence, and provide a mechanism that allows wealth, and therefore power, to concentrate in a few hands, unnaturally. Each of those characteristics works counter to individual liberty and the proper purposes of government. More than that, centralization through the corporation works against life itself as the response to the corona virus demonstrated. For example, the meat processing industry basically shut down because the entire business is conducted by a few corporations. The proper purpose of government is to hold people accountable for their actions, not to control entire industries or allow people to escape responsibility for their misconduct through use of the corporate form. The private corporation essentially is mind control on steroids for redistribution of wealth and power to the elite through the misuse of governmental power. Redistribution of wealth to the elitists, or even the poor, is not a proper function of government.
The proper economic system is private enterprise, i.e., through individual merit, not corporate enterprise, socialism, or communism. Venezuela, where people are starving to death, is a typical example of the consequences of socialism and communism. Private enterprise cultivates a mindset of responsibility, creativity, and continuity–among many other positive traits. Corporations cultivate a mindset of greed, slavery, dependency, and division. History indicates that when monopolies are broken up, economic activity flourishes. The break-up of Standard Oil, AT&T and the Bell Telephone Company are useful examples of that effect. The loss of the Netscape browser and the Tucker automobile company because the anti-trust laws were not enforced as written are typical examples of mega private corporations suppressing productive economic activity and innovation. Banning the private corporation would be a tremendous engine for economic growth and stability and personal responsibility, achievement, and innovation. Wealth obtained through the use of force, including the government, is counterproductive and oppressive to the masses.
President Eisenhower warned us of the oppressive nature of the “military-industrial complex.” It couldn’t exist but for the private corporation. It demands to be fed massive amounts of money from the federal treasury and it advocates for war. It is a threat to the well-being of this nation’s citizens and people throughout the world.
I have observed that catastrophic environmental damage occurs through the private corporation where it otherwise would not have. If the “bottom line” favors polluting, corporations pollute due to the limitation-of-liability shield. Much legislation, including that which allows for H1-b visas and O-1 visas that give our jobs to foreigners, is passed to promote the interests of the corporation.
President Eisenhower also warned us of the oppressive nature of the “scientific-technological elite.” We are nearly in “full flower” now. They have combined with the media to push a false narrative to support these “shelter in place” orders that have destroyed our civil rights, including our First Amendment right to associate and our rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to earn a living. Currently there is no such thing as a “free press” as referenced in the Constitution—at least not as the Founders understood that term. Just six companies control more than 90 percent of the news media. This is a relatively recent phenomenon. The “press” used to be extremely decentralized, and that is the way it should be. Essentially, only the unelected decision-makers in the private media corporations currently have a “free press.” Even though they, along with the legal profession, are not elected, they effectively are arms of the government and have as much, or more, influence as any elected official.
Many years ago, Congress provided at least a partial remedy by passing the Sherman Antitrust Act to address the excesses of the “robber barons” of the mid to late 1800s, but the federal courts, which are in favor of big government and big corporations to expand their power, refuse to enforce it as written. The courts enforce other Acts of Congress as written; in fact, judges openly state that they must enforce statutes as written unless it would be illogical to do so. Judges do not claim that enforcing the Sherman Act as written would be illogical. Judges say only that they don’t want the Act to have the expansive affect that it would have if they did so. Congress has the prerogative to determine the affect of legislation, not judges. History has repeated. The Judiciary and the Executive must be compelled to enforce the Sherman Act as written to address the modern day “robber barons.”
Enforcement of the anti-nobility clauses would be an effective remedy to address the economic slavery of today through the corporation and government. I would advocate and vote for the courts to be directed to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act as written to diminish the mega multi-national corporation, which ships American jobs overseas, imports foreign workers under H-1b and O-1 visas, and is a hindrance to economic growth, and for an economic structure that favors individuals and families having their own businesses.
The decree of the Creator for mankind to take dominion over the earth and subdue it and to be fruitful and multiply should be pursued. This mandate directs the full and responsible utilization of the earth’s natural resources, which includes elevating the needs of people over animals and plants.
Everybody wants clean air and water for themselves and others, except for a few corporate operatives, so whether there should be clear air and water is not the issue. The issue is whether the Creator will be obeyed or whether the creation will be worshiped. There is no rational basis for much of what is done in the name of the environment. For example, the heavy-handed federal government has turned the San Joaquin Valley, which used to be a fertile, productive area for growing food, into a wasteland by diverting water that would have been used for people and agriculture to try to remove some sediment from a river to supposedly benefit an imported salmon species. The federal government is taking control of agricultural lands throughout the nation on the basis that they are associated with navigable waterways which has led to a $2.8 million dollar fine being imposed on a farmer for plowing his field. A $450,000 fine has been levied against property owners for cutting down trees on their own land! If you kill the wrong spider you could go to jail! Millions of acres are roped off for a frog. Locally, this type of government regulation has prevented the development of a water source by the water board for rural families because a particular plant might be adversely affected even though there is no proof whatsoever of any harm to the plant species or the environment. In fact, all the proof indicates otherwise.
The man-made global warming initiative is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. It is a Jonathan Gruber “Yeah, we lied to the stupid American people” kind of fraud. It is fear-mongering to establish a massive tax and spend scheme to destroy the United States through wealth transfer. Look at the Paris Climate Accord–the United States is the only country with any real obligations and they are crippling.
Collin Peterson apparently believes in the man-made global warming hoax, or at least has acquiesced to it. However, the “inconvenient truth” is that the proponents of this fraud have the burden of proving it, and they haven’t and can’t. The basis for man-made global warming is that the earth is consistently warming by about one tenth of one degree per decade for decades. The proponents think that they accurately measure that sort of small change even though temperatures are constantly changing in every location throughout the whole world every hour, of every day, of every year, and they account for natural variation that always has occurred–even periods of warming that occurred prior to industrialization. That is nonsense.
The leading man-made global warming proponents say its getting warmer because its getting colder!?!? As the scriptures say, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” These same people were promoting global cooling in the 1990s saying that the next ice age was upon us. That is a documented fact. So, why does this hoax persist? The progressive Democrats are facile liars and there is so much government funding to try to prove that man-made global warming does exist (which is the very antithesis of true scientific research) that “researchers” are not going to give up their government grants to say it doesn’t exist. So, they are proceeding on the basis that if they repeat this lie long enough, people will believe it even though there aren’t any facts using the scientific method of observability, testability, and repeatability in support of man-made global warming. That should be enough for this failed hypothesis (it’s not even a scientific theory, let alone not a scientific law) to be discredited, but there is more.
The weather does change, and sometimes there are very warm days–even record setting temperatures, but that always has been the case. Supposed incrementally higher average temperatures are part of the man-made global warming fraud, but weather recording stations in the past were in the country and now those areas are developed which completely accounts for the data showing a very small increase in temperature–if any! Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a so-called “greenhouse gas” but increasing levels of CO2 are completely consumed by plants, and oxygen is produced as a byproduct, in proportion to the increase. Plant production increases with increasing levels of CO2. That is a basic principal of science/agronomy/horticulture. Also, any competent horticulturist knows that a greenhouse, if anything, is an oxygen rich environment, not a CO2 rich environment! The “Chicken Littles” have been saying the “sky is falling” for many decades through “greenhouse gas” and other similar baseless messages. I know, my science teacher in high school was promoting the same the “sky is falling” message that they are promoting now–and that was over 40 years ago and the environment has not changed. Actually, this global warming hoax was being promoted in the 1860s! The “sky” hasn’t fallen and it won’t! I can go on and on, but when the underlying basis for this hoax is investigated, a person discovers that it’s all hokum and it all falls apart (Our Planet Is Not Fragile).
The federal constitution does not provide any basis whatsoever for this kind of regulation and it is contrary to the proper purposes of government. The Constitution provides for States to band together through compacts to undertake collective initiatives they deem important. If this sort of regulation is to occur, it must be occur through the authority specified by the Constitution–not through “smoke and mirrors” as it is today. State compacts provide a mechanism to address larger issues with less danger of abuse. Additionally, we need a “people first” environmental policy that would include the immediate transfer of all undeveloped land in control of the federal government to the citizens of this country first and what is left over to the States. Individuals and families are the best stewards of the land–not bureaucrats!
Who wants a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. to dictate to them how they should conduct their affairs? The federal government is taking control of agricultural lands throughout the nation on the basis that they are associated with navigable waterways which has led to a $2.8 million dollar fine being imposed on a farmer for plowing his field. The government also is taking control of the land through vertical integration by the mega multinational corporation that controls everything from what is produced all the way through to the sale of the product to foreign nations which eventually results in all of the profits going to the elite and the people being reduced to a state of slavery. A free people should be able to make decisions as to how to responsibly conduct his/her operations, and their decision-making should be based on private enterprise, rather than being dictated by the government.
The family farming operation, rather than corporate farming, is the best form of agriculture because family farmers care for the land, water, and livestock. It also supports rural communities. It promotes entire way of life that is worth living. When selling commodities, corporate farming drives down the prices so low that family farms can’t earn a decent income. The highest priority of corporations that are not owned by family farmers is profit, which overrides all other concerns. The corporate form is the root cause of the decline of rural communities. I used to work for a multi-national agriculture corporation. I know from experience that these corporations when selling inputs set their prices at the maximum the market will bear and they make obscene profits on their products. The Sherman Antitrust Act needs to be enforced against them to break them up so there will be more competition, and therefore lower costs for farm inputs and higher prices for your products. That will be my primary focus if elected.
Incumbents, who support a big, all-encompassing government, have presided over the continuing decay of rural communities through the promotion of mega-corporation-friendly farm bills. I recommend diminishing mega, non-family, low-employment corporations which, if successful, will tend to rejuvenate rural communities through more farms and increased populations, and therefore goods and services, in rural communities.
In effect, the United States Taxpayer pays subsidies to EU farmers because we pay for the defense of Europe by having military bases in the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and throughout Europe, and we pay the lion’s share of the expenses for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (many hundreds of billions of dollars just for NATO!). Because we pay for Europe’s defense, the EU has money to pay these massive subsidies. If the United States gets out of Europe and NATO, then the EU will have to pay for its own defense and won’t have money to subsidize its farmers. The United States Taxpayer not only subsidizes European farmers, but also is required to subsidize American farmers to enable them to compete with EU subsidized products.
The United States and Europe are the primary reserve producers of most agricultural products. Europeans should be left to pay for their own defense, and therefore they will be unable to provide massive subsidies to their farmers. The United States sends our tax dollars to every nation on the face of the earth–including China and Russia. That has to come to an end.
The American farmer is the original entrepreneur in this country. All he/she wants is a level playing field. Defunding NATO will be a large step in that direction. Its purpose came to an end a long time ago.
We need a “land grant act” that would transfer all undeveloped land in control of the federal government to the citizens of this country first and what is left over to the States. Individuals and families are the best stewards of the land–not bureaucrats! If I am elected I will strike a blow against the corporate form which will have the effect of repopulating and rejuvenating rural areas.
I support modification or removal of federal laws that prevent farmers and other persons from protecting themselves and their property from wolves and other animals that are a threat to them or their property. After 30 years in Congress, Collin Peterson still hasn’t done anything to help ranchers. He just says, “I think we should trust the farmer more and base the decision [for remuneration from the government for the loss of livestock to predation from wolves] on whether to offset farmers’ losses on their word and the evidence at hand.” Well that isn’t helping the rancher much is it? We should expect more–a lot more.
Currently, there is a shortage of labor for the livestock industry and other labor intensive categories of industry. Nearly 75 percent of the workers in those industries are foreigners. We wouldn’t have a shortage in labor if we hadn’t killed 60 million babies through abortion, along with all of their children and grandchildren. We have an immigration problem because of the barbaric practice of abortion!
I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, including the right to personally bear arms. As a gun owner, I defend the right to personally keep and bear arms. I support the right of all law-abiding citizens to use Constitutional carry to protect themselves and their loved ones. I also support the “stand your ground” self-defense. The personal right to keep and bear arms (PDF ) is fundamental to who we are in this country. The riots in Minneapolis demonstrate the need for citizens to have weapons to defend themselves and their property. Now they are saying you need to prepare to be robbed and raped!
Every elected official has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies–foreign and domestic. Having taken that oath, they have the obligation to support and defend the Second Amendment–not eliminate it or diminish it. The solution to gun violence is to have an efficient death penalty and an armed citizenry—not gun control.
For example, a study identified the rate of homicides and suicides from firearms during the ten years preceding a background check law and the ten years following. The comprehensive background check for firearm purchasers has had practically zero effect on California gun violence. See Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia, et al.,California’s Comprehensive Background Check and Misdemeanor Violence Prohibition Policies and Firearm Mortality, 30 Annals of Epidemiology 50 (2019). The authors of the study confirmed that the findings are consistent with experiences in Indiana and Tennessee where ending background checks in 1998 did not change the rates of firearm homicide or suicide.
Judges, federal and state, are responsible for making it practically impossible to defend yourself. They have created doctrines that punish the victim if a firearm is used in the slightest way against their criminal-friendly rules. This is another reason why judges’ role in society must be completely revamped to limit them to administrative functions only and the jury reestablished to make all decisions on the application of the law. Federal judges, trial lawyers and bureacrats, though not elected, have far more influence on the direction of government than elected officials or even bodies of elected officials. That has to end if the nation is to survive.
The federal debt is over 25 trillion dollars. Then there is “intragovernmental” debt and “implicit debt” that runs the “tab” to over 120 trillion dollars. Surprisingly, that is not all. Federal government “mandates,” which also are almost always entitlements, essentially control 60% of State governments’ budgets too! That means each citizen, you included, may owe hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to the governments’ creditors.
Entitlement programs consume about 60% of the federal budget and therefore are the primary driver for this debt accumulation. What’s worse is that there is no limit to the expansion of entitlements even as they currently exist (they continue without limitation without anyone voting for them to continue), and therefore the burden on taxpayers to pay for them is unlimited. Furthermore, the legal precedent to collect taxes from you through judicial fiat is currently in place because welfare recipients are considered to have a Constitutional right to their entitlements and you must pay until you don’t have any more assets to collect. That’s right. The unelected federal judiciary already has set precedent that empowers them to command elected officials to increase your taxes and neither the elected officials nor the electorate have any say in the matter! This is not the model created by the Founders (anti-nobility clauses ). The federal government was established as an instrumentality of the States, not the way it is now where the federal government dictates to the States. That must change.
The “Santa Claus” mentality of promising more and more government payments apart from services rendered or product provided helps politicians win elections, but eventually this “house of cards” is going to collapse. Our ancestors agreed with this. One of them said, “a democracy can exist only until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
Like all Ponzi schemes, it is only a matter of time until this something-for-nothing policy runs its course and then the cruelly oppressive nature of this amount of debt will have to be borne. The interest on debt makes this situation even worse. Compounding interest is the most powerful invention in human history and, in this case, it works against you. The federal government could soon pay more in interest on its debt than it spends on the military, Medicaid or children’s programs. Within a decade, more than $900 billion in interest payments will be due annually, easily outpacing spending on myriad other programs.The amount you owe is going up exponentially!
You are responsible for paying this debt (your elected representatives signed for you) and it will come due. Realistically, each individual with any ability to pay owes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to the government’s creditors. That is on top of your other expenses such as food, clothing, and housing, and the creditor will require payment of the federal debt first–leaving you with nothing. There is no such thing as bankruptcy relief for this sort of debt. Venezuela, where people are starving, is an excellent example of this. In this light, the individualized benefits from the public treasury apart from services rendered are not as “free” as they seem. The debt from this something-for-nothing policy will have to be paid, with interest on interest on interest, and it will come from your assets. Since the amount owing exceeds the assets of the masses, essentially what we have is communism through the back door.
Incurring debt is irresponsible to future generations. We should not run up a massive “tab” that our children will have to pay in the future. We must not place our children in financial slavery to subsidize the cost of tyrants and despots obtaining elective office. The welfare state also is bad for the recipients.
The Constitution does not provide a basis for much of what the federal government does–including entitlements and a standing army. Much of what the government does now occurs through the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause.
The Commerce Clause was intended by the Founders to apply only to foreign trade, and yet it has been expanded without amending the Constitution to apply domestically and regulate nearly anything that has any sort of a financial basis and beyond.
The General Welfare Clause was intended to be a limitation and a check on the power of the federal government, and it has been turned into a way for elected federal officials and bureaucrats to write checks to whatever constituency they want to support their ever increasing power (i.e., entitlements). The Constitution must be enforced as intended.
I believe Social Security benefits for the aged are in the nature of an annuity, and therefore are not an entitlement in this context. I would advocate and vote in such a way to restore those contributions to a “lock box” status in the federal treasury–as it used to be. Currently, Social Security contributions do not have any special protection at all. Benefits to military personnel are for services rendered.
Redistribution of wealth is not a legitimate use of governmental power. The proper model to address the temporal needs of people in the community is first personal responsibility, then family responsibility, and finally charity. Regardless, the resources come from the people and States can determine whether to extract them and how to use them—not the federal government. So many resources are lost on bureaucracy and so much tyranny results from it. If the people genuinely support individualized benefits apart from services rendered or product provided, they can provide them to those in need locally. A federal bureaucracy is ineffective and inefficient for that purpose.
Supposedly, there is a “need” for immigration to support the welfare state. We wouldn’t have this “need” if we hadn’t killed 60 million babies through abortion, along with all of their children and grandchildren, and we don’t need a welfare state. We have an immigration problem because of the gross immorality of abortion!
Thomas Jefferson wrote to Mr. Hammond in 1821: “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in … the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body … working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states.” In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” It seems to me that he was prophetic! He was not alone. Alexis De Tocqueville, a disinterested observer of early American government, wrote in Democracy in America that “. . . if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent or bad men, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war.” We have had imprudent and bad people in the federal courts which led to the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, and therefore we had civil war. We most certainly will have civil war again because of Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, among other decisions, and even more anarchy than we have now unless the issue with the federal courts is addressed immediately. The degeneration of the nation is largely due to the federal courts through decisions like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell. De Tocqueville also said, “When the American republics begin to degenerate, it will be easy to verify the truth of this observation by remarking whether the number of political impeachments is increased.” He hit the proverbial “nail on the head” in making that comment nearly two hundred years ago!
I would advocate and vote to repudiate Marbury v. Madison, a decision issued many years ago by the Supreme Court that was used to establish federal courts as the ultimate decision-maker in government. Even though the Constitution itself provides a mechanism for amendment, and it has been amended many times, federal judges are so pompous that they say they can change it as they wish. To take this ultimate power is tyrannical and despotic (anti-nobility clauses ).
In issuing the Marbury decision, the Supreme Court did not have the support of the Constitution, the Executive, or the Congress to do so. The very structure of the Constitution establishes Congress as preeminent to the courts, which is eminently logical because they are closest to the people in that they are elected and judges are appointed. For Congress to make a decision, it takes 269 votes in favor of it. With the Supreme Court, it only takes five votes, and many times a binding decision circumventing the will of Congress and the President rests on the vote of one Justice. What’s worse is that one unelected federal district court judge circumvents the will of Congress and the President, and therefore the will of the people. That is outrageous! At the time the Constitution was formed, for the courts to declare something “unconstitutional” would have been completely foreign to the Founders.
According to the Constitution, the existence of lower federal courts is completely discretionary. It doesn’t make any sense to consider them superior to Congress and determine that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional. Congress can, and maybe should, repeal the Judiciary Act of 1789 and terminate the existence of the lower federal courts unless they can be put into their proper role under the Constitution.
In shaping the Constitution, the Founders were extremely concerned about preventing tyranny and despotism through application of government power to anything but basic morality. Thomas Jefferson, who was President when the Supreme Court issued the Marbury decision, had the view that it was illegitimate, as did Andrew Jackson when he was President. Early observers of the American way of life and government warned that the structure of the courts was the weak link of our system of government and would lead to civil war. History has proven them correct at least once, i.e., Dred Scott v. Sanford. This tyranny must be addressed. If necessary, I would advocate and vote for the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to remove all lower federal courts, except for a few specialty courts, to address this situation.
Governmental power must be returned to the people. One way is to limit the federal government as understood by the Founders. This would include limiting the power of the courts to applying the law only as to the case before any particular court. No more broad and sweeping decrees at to the constitutionality of any act of Congress or the President. Another way is to empower the people by requiring the courts to have the jury determine the facts and the law before the coercive power of the government can be applied to any person or situation. As it is now, the jury is rarely used, and then only to determine a few facts. I will advocate and vote along these lines. Alexis-de-Tocqueville-Democracy-in-America.pdf page 310.
Judges, federal and state, are responsible for making it practically impossible to defend yourself. They have created doctrines that punish the victim if a firearm is used in the slightest way against their criminal-friendly rules. This is another reason why judges’ role in society must be completely revamped to limit them to administrative functions only and the jury reestablished to make all decisions on the application of the law. Federal judges, trial lawyers and bureaucrats, though not elected, have far more influence on the direction of government than elected officials or even bodies of elected officials. That has to end if the nation is to survive.
I recommend defunding the promotion of evolution. It is a destructive philosophy and there isn’t even one proof of it using the scientific method of observability, testability, and repeatability. I have asked the people at the National Geographic, leading proponents of evolution, numerous times to provide one fact in support of evolution using the scientific method, and they have not. In fact, there isn’t any known method for producing life from non-life, but there is evidence that evolution is impossible. The hypothetical simple organism that supposedly arose from primordial goo is a complete impossibility. All life is dependent on the DNA double helix, but it is so irreducibly complex that it could not have sprang spontaneously from nothing apart from the Creator. Diversity in life forms occurs through how genes are expressed–not modification. All genetic modifications are deleterious–without exception.
As stated in “Infallible Proofs” by Marvin Byers, “The discovery of DNA has, in numerous ways, decidedly put to rest the myth that the first living cell came about by some accidental or sublime event of nature, as the evolutionists claim happened. DNA consists of two very long and complex molecules with an enormous amount of information encoded into them. The two long molecules are intertwined to form a double helix. One of them has been referred to as a mirror image of the other. Scientists recognize that DNA is a major secret to life itself. But to form the first simple living cell, the two molecules had to “accidentally” form in precisely the same place in a vast ocean and at precisely the same time. Coincidentally, one had to be the mirror image of the other, and they then had to somehow get intimately intertwined.”
“At this point, the problem for an evolutionist has hardly begun, because approximately 200 other substances are needed for a simple cell to reproduce itself. The evolutionists must believe that they all formed at the same time and place in which the double helix formed in a vast ocean. The epitome of the absurd is that they also must believe that the enormously complex cell wall had to somehow form at the same time and place, through a miracle of nature, and then the cell wall accidentally enclosed the double helix and the 200 substances all at once!”
The same conclusion of the impossibility of life springing forth spontaneously from nothing is required in light of the complexity of chemical reactions that are required to support life and the Second Law of Thermodynamics–entrophy. It is inconceivable that we waste hard-earned tax dollars on this evolution nonsense and yet it is pervasive throughout the educational system and government!
No one should be surprised that children act like animals when they are taught that they are animals. The demise of the schools, and society in general, is the inevitable result of the rejection of genuine Christianity. One component of the solution to resolving school shootings is to remove the teaching of evolution from the educational system. Also, we should learn from the past and put up a sign saying, “You shall not murder” and teach the children the eternal consequences for doing so. When the schools did that, putting chewing gum under the desk and truancy were the biggest problems they had. An efficient death penalty would be useful as well.
Education is a local matter. Rather than taking money from the people and circulating it through the federal bureaucracy, decide locally how you want to use it. I recommend recognizing homeschooling as a fundamental right of parents.
The United Nations should be defunded and disbanded. This group of people is not elected by anybody, let alone people of the United States, is thoroughly corrupt, exerts increasing control over the United States, diminishes United States sovereignty through treaties, and is a tool to further Muslim interests throughout the world.
According to the Constitution, treaties have an elevated status, but treaties as understood by the Founders were never intended to manage the internal affairs of the United States. For example, the International Rights of the Child Convention has the effect of dramatically diminishing parental rights. I oppose this Convention.
Currently, the government does not take a proactive position against cyber attacks. That needs to change. The government needs to aggressively punish hackers and other malicious actors–even if they are state actors–for attacks against government or persons in the United States. Additionally, why are foreign entities from Muslim nations controlling our ports? Even the Chinese are seeking control of our ports through a Hong Kong entity.
Why should the Constitution govern our affairs well over 200 years after it was established? The Revolutionary/American War occurred on the heels of the Great Awakening which was a Christian revival that redeemed the minds and hearts of the colonists according to the eternal principals and ways of the Almighty. The colonists then established a framework to govern unredeemed human nature with that understanding that led to the rise of the greatest nation on the face of the earth. Because unredeemed human nature does not change and the ways for successfully governing it do not change, the Constitution as originally understood is as valid today as it was then. If the Constitution is re-implemented as originally intended, it will lead to the successful revival of the nation.
Career politicians are not what the Founders intended. They intended a continual rotation of persons in government. The Constitution’s anti-Nobility Clauses (PDF ) demand it. A continual rotation of persons ensures that the interests of the people are represented. Career politicians produce factions, an entrenched bureaucracy, and an all-encompassing government–which is exactly what we have now. Also, if you dislike excessive electioneering, you must not vote for incumbents who have an abundance of campaign funds to use to bludgeon you with political advertising and, in effect, buy votes. Most likely these funds were obtained from special interests that work against your interests.
Paid for by the Stephen A. Emery for Congress Committee.
Contributions are not tax deductible.