Below you'll find some videos, music, and Word2003.doc files I've uploaded to my (rented) server. They express some uniquely-American principles and values -- such as constitutional limits on federal control of our lives, individual freedom, responsibility, duty, and love of America. I hope you'll think they're worth your time.

---


        Posted Aug2014 by sls

[This week, my brother Rod sent me (and others) a copy of an article he read. The article urges replacing religious scriptures with science. After reading the article and the letter Rod wrote to recommend it, I posted my thoughts on the subject here:]

Scientific Ethics

In his article "Scientific Ethics and the Scriptures of Abrahamic Faiths", Steve Sklar tries to convince us that the ethical guides embodied in "the Scriptures", which include the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, should be replaced by science.

Sklar warns us that if we continue to hold the faith of our fathers, "We could destroy ourselves through our ignorance and savagery", but if we reject God and embrace Science (man) in His place, "our descendants can achieve glories we cannot now even conceive."

To offer the slightest credence to Sklar's theme would take considerable effort, just to shut out some of the more glaring problems with science, including:

Social sciences like psychology are particularly poor guides to ethics. (As one with advanced degrees in that field, I've been on the inside.) In his letter introducing Sklar's article, Rod's description of a psychology experiment doesn't mention other stimuli to which the infant subjects could have been responding, such as the violent movements and noises necessary to slam a door shut. Common sense tells us that an infant would be likely to reject a toy that had been paired with violence. But that interpretation is so mundane that no particular notice would have been given to it. On the other hand, interpreting the infants' rejection of the toy as some kind of instinctive ethic can be touted as a discovery worthy of news stories and grants for continued research. That kind of creative interpretation is easily done in social "science", especially when it supports personal ambitions and/or an agenda favored by the agency distributing the grant money.

For me, ethical behavior has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. If we "destroy ourselves through our ignorance and savagery" as Sklar fears, it won't be caused by any lack of "scientific ethics". On the contrary, our entertainment media (including mainstream "news") continually shows us that the progressivism which began in the early 20th century is still destroying American families and society. The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule provide the ethical basis for developing morality*, which could impede the progressive destruction of our society. Science has not done this, does not do this, and can not do this.

Dr. S.L. Sanders 2014aug27(12:03)-sls
*By "morality", I mean our personal understanding of good and evil, coupled with self-imposed avoidance of evil even when it could never be discovered.


        Posted Feb2013 by sls

[I wrote the following article to organize my thoughts about the decline of the dollar. I posted it here in hope of increasing awareness and discussion of the effects of allowing the national government, through the Federal Reserve, to create money by fiat, --money that represents no valued thing, product, or work. --2013feb20(16:29)-sls]

Stealth Taxation
     Our national government continues to borrow billions of dollars each day by selling treasury bonds. All such borrowing accrues interest that must be paid, but the government has no money to pay it. So they try to sell more bonds to get the money to pay the interest on the ones they already sold. But not enough bond buyers (lenders) can be convinced that the bonds are worth buying. So a government-created cartel of private banks (known as the Federal Reserve) "buys" those same bonds that were considered a poor value by real investors. As if that isn't bad enough, the government banking cartel doesn't buy the bad bonds with money that's been earned and deposited by productive enterprise --it simply "prints" new money by digitally creating it in a computer system. To obscure this official chicanery and make it sound inscrutable and important, they call it "quantitative easing".
     Unlike dollars earned for work and paid for products, the computer-generated dollars conjured by the government represent nothing of any value at all. Mixing those valueless dollars into the economy forces the price of everything (including services) higher, because dollars suddenly have become plentiful without a commensurate increase in productivity. When dollars are plentiful, and when sellers can't tell an earned dollar from a conjured one, they naturally demand to get more dollars for whatever product or service they sell. This makes you and I poorer. Yes, we still have the same dollars we put away last year, but they're no longer worth what they were last year; it now takes more dollars to buy the things for which we were saving.
     This inflation is not some uncontrollable fact of life, rather, it is intentionally caused by central economic planners of the Federal Reseve and the government. They know the dollars they conjure must necessarily cause prices to rise, but they also know there'll be lag time during which they can use the digital dollars they fake before prices have time to go up. The rest of us can only watch the value of our savings drop. In this manner, "quantitative easing" makes you and I poorer while making the national government richer and more powerful. Quantitative easing isn't hard to understand. It is simply stealth taxation, transferring buying power from individual citizens to the national government.
     How do they get away with it? Too many people tend to believe whatever is said by politicians and their cheerleaders in the entertainment industry (including "news"), whenever bad policy is pitched using non-specific emotional appeals like "for the good of the country", "for the environment", "for the children", "to help the little guy", and so on. This tendency is especially strong when the bad policy is cloaked in made-up phrases like "quantitative easing", and deceptive sophism that's carefully crafted to make people think they're not really smart enough to understand any of it. Many people do apply common sense -- the worst enemy of Keynesian central planners -- and see through the deception, but too few speak strongly against it.

Buying Power (Value)
     People once traded with each other by barter, using actual goods for payment. A person's power to buy things was simply the stock of things he owned. This was inconvenient, because if Jason owns too many "A"s but needs "B"s, he might not be able to find anyone willing to trade "B"s for "A"s.
     When it was noticed that nearly anyone would trade nearly anything to get small amounts of gold or silver, those metals (usually formed into coins) were used as a convenient method of "go-between" trading. With gold as a trading medium, Jason need only find someone who'll give him gold in exchange for his "A"s. Jason no longer has to worry about that person's stock of "B"s, because anyone else who has "B"s might exchange them for his newly-acquired gold.
     Later in history, it became possible to write a note promising to pay a set amount of gold (or silver). Some such notes named the person to whom the gold would be paid, making them worthless to anyone else. But another kind of note, usually written by governments and banks, stated that the gold or silver would be paid to "the bearer", that is, anyone who presented the note to its writer. These "bearer notes" would be accepted as payment for anything, as long as the recipients believed that they would indeed be able to collect the amount of gold or silver written on the notes.
     Bearer notes relieved people from the inconvenience of storing and transporting bulky and heavy metal coins. As more and more people began to believe the promise written on the notes, those notes became a preferred medium of exchange. They became paper money.
     Our paper money (called dollars after a Spanish gold coin) once stated, in all uppercase letters, "This certifies that there have been deposited in the treasury of the United States of America [amount] dollars in gold coin payable to the bearer on demand". Such dollars had value simply because they could be exchanged for gold, something nearly everyone in the world would work or trade to get.


Note, written by the national government in the first half of the twentieth century,
promising to pay $20 in gold to the bearer.
[Image from www.coinsandstamps.com]

Buying Power Destroyed -- Why?
     In January 1933, 20.67 dollars would buy the same things as 1 ounce of gold, so the buying power of $20.67 was equal to 1 ounce of gold. But soon after being inaugurated as President, Franklin Roosevelt made it illegal for U.S. citizens to own gold, and forced all U.S. citizens to sell their gold to the national government for $20.67 an ounce. As soon as he got all the gold, Roosevelt decreed that gold was now worth $35.00 an ounce (but only foreigners could buy it). Before Roosevelt's edict, you could get things that cost 1 ounce of gold by spending 20.67 dollars from your savings account or wallet. With a stroke of his pen, Roosevelt forced you to spend 14.33 more dollars to get those same things. Those things still cost an ounce of gold, but now, instead of 20.67 dollars, you need 35 dollars to buy them. Overnight, all U.S. citizens lost 59% (20.67/35) of their buying power. Roosevelt had purposely created instantaneous inflation that robbed all citizens, especially stealing from those who had savings. Roosevelt said he did it "to protect the interests of [the] people." It'd be charitable to think President Roosevelt was duped by communists like John Maynard Keynes, who were intent on destroying freedom and replacing it with government planning (dictatorship). Can we make the same excuse for Obama, Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Clinton, and all the others who have followed Keynes since Roosevelt?
     During the thirty years after Roosevelt confiscated the wealth of U.S. citizens for re-distribution by his central planners, the national government gradually changed the wording on its notes until they no longer promise any payment of any kind. (Look at any of the "Federal Reserve Notes" in your wallet.) In the final analysis, such notes are worthless, because the writer of the notes will give you nothing at all for them, except (maybe) more worthless notes. The things that cost an ounce of gold before still cost that much gold, but the amount of dollars they might cost is now unlimited, because the national government can write an unlimited number of worthless notes. (Today, the government doesn't even have to go to the trouble of printing valueless dollars; a few keystrokes and clicks now do the equivalent damage.)
     Our national government (and others around the world) stopped writing notes that promise to pay gold simply because they can't print gold or fake it with a computer system. With no promise to pay anything on the notes, governments can simply issue them at will (by fiat), unconstrained by actual ownership of anything tangible. Fully aware that printing such unconstrained dollars always reduces the value of current dollars, they spend the printed money before the drop in value happens. And when the drop does occur, they simply print more dollars.
      As the national government continues, month after month, to create billions of dollars that don't represent any valuable product or service, the buying power of all dollars has been dropping. A dollar today can buy less than 5% of what it could a century ago. The drop in value is relentlessly continued by Keynesian central economic planners working for the national government. How low can it go? History is full of examples proving that paper money easily can become so worthless that no one will accept it.

Is There Any Defense?
     Unlike dollars, gold is real, and it has never been worthless. Gold is accepted as valuable in every country. Although its price, expressed in dollars, naturally fluctuates with the changing value of the dollar, the buying power of gold remains fairly constant over decades. An ounce of gold today can buy about 100% of what it could a century ago, but a dollar can buy only 5% of what it could then. So gold has retained its value while the dollar has lost over 95% of its value. It seems clear that accumulating or holding dollars is an extremely poor method of saving value for use in the future, and that getting and saving gold (the metal, not paper shares) may be the best.

This link to bullionvault.com shows the best way I know
to get gold or silver as your own legal property,
allocated to you personally, and audited daily.



        Posted Feb2013 by sls:
The Constitution explicitly limits the federal government's powers, but for many decades the federal government has coerced and bribed the States to look the other way while it repeatedly violates the Constitution. Federal courts (including the Supreme Court), instead of fulfilling their "check and balance" duty to stop such abuses, actually have joined in this corruption, by twisting and contorting language, logic, and common sense to avoid striking down unconstitutional federal laws (Chief Justice Roberts' opinion regarding the "Affordable Care Act" is only the latest example.)
That leaves the people with little or no protection against unconstitutional interference in their daily affairs by the federal government-- unless the people can convince their State and local governments to stand against federal agents who try to enforce an unconstitutional federal act.
I've written a letter to my county government asking it to enact legislation directing the Sheriff's department to protect county residents from the unconstitutional federal laws affecting firearms and ammunition. You can read the letter here: Amendment2&10LocalGov.doc.
        Posted Apr2012 by sls:
I had an e-mail conversation about power and freedom recently. The discussion brought out some points that I think are important enough to be posted here: Power&Freedom.doc.
        Posted Aug2010 by sls:
Why are so many good people afraid to talk about important things? I wrote a page, WeCanTalk.doc, about the pervasive "political correctness" censorship under which we live today.
        Posted Aug2010 by sls:
How did our once-free States allow themselves to be subjugated under the tyranny of today's too-powerful central government? After reading The Federalist Papers and some historical documents posted on the internet, I wrote a single page, HowTyranny.doc, to summarize what I learned.
        Posted Aug2010 by sls:
In reading Reagan's 1987 State of the Union address, I was impressed by the contrast between his celebration of the uniqueness of our Constitution, and the disparagement of it expressed by Barack Obama in a 2001 radio interview.

As usual, one thing led to another, and I spent several hours writing a short paper, WhichConstitution.doc, to show why we should care about that contrast and what we can do about it now.


        Posted Dec2009 by sls:
We were warned about government health care nearly fifty years ago, by a Hollywood actor speaking to a group of physician's wives. In that 1961 "coffee cup" speech, Ronald Reagan warned us that Democrats were promoting government-mandated health insurance as the first step to socialized medicine. He said the proponents of this program, which would attach to Social Security, viewed it as a "foot in the door" to Socialist America.

During his speech, Reagan referred to the "Forand bill", which called for increasing Social Security taxes to pay for government-mandated medical insurance. The Intercollegiate Socialistic Society, calling itself The League for Industrial Democracy had first proposed that idea back in the early 1930s, but President Roosevelt rejected it, saying "it would lead to socialized medicine." In spite of that public condemnation, Democrats re-introduced the idea several times over the years under various names. The Forand bill was just the latest re-cycle.

I uploaded the Reagan speech in .flv (flash) format, in case you want to use a flash player like FLVplayer (or Adobe's resource-hogging flash player) to see it.
    Reagan&ObamaCare.FLV 12,213,245 bytes

For those who don't want to install FLVplayer or the resource hog, I converted the .flv file to .mpg and to .avi so you can use any multimedia player. The .mpg file is huge, so I'd recommend the .avi file. The quality of the .mpg is better, but it takes a lot longer to download.
    Reagan&ObamaCare.AVI 18,128,406 bytes
    Reagan&ObamaCare.MPG 26,750,976 bytes

In case you want to store and play the Reagan speech on your PDA, I converted the .flv file to an .avi file that's specially-formatted for the small screen of the PDA. (It works well on my Palm Tungsten T5.)
    Reagan&ObamaCare-pda.AVI 6,916,648 bytes

For those who don't care about the images, and just want to hear what Reagan said, I ripped the audio out of the .flv file and uploaded it as an .mp3 file.
    Reagan&ObamaCare.mp3 2,196,220 bytes

NOTE: The links above connect to an abridged version of Reagan's 1961 speech. I found the full speech, and uploaded it as an .mp3 (audio only) file. I tried to find a text version of the full speech, but couldn't. (Several text copies of the abridged version exist, but the ones I saw have Congressman Forand's name badly misspelled as "Ferrand", which raises serious authenticity doubts.)
    Reagan&Socialism.MP3 11,284,929 bytes


        Posted Dec2009 by sls:
I wanted to learn more about the legislation that inspired Reagan's 1961 speech, so I did some internet research. The best explanation of its history I could find was written by Edward R. Annis, MD., past president of the AMA (American Medical Association). It was first published in the Medical Sentinel 2002;7(4):116-118. The Medical Sentinel later became the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, which has been accused of publishing poor science in support of political goals. That accusation may be honest, or it may be just another political smear; in either case it can't affect the credibility of a paper that presents independently-verifiable history of an event like the introduction of the Forand bill.
    TowardSocializedMedicine.doc 39,424 bytes

        Posted Dec2009 by sls:
The below link will open a Word2003 document. It's the letter I wrote to Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, to support him when he was considering voting against Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats on national health. We know now that Nelson has sold his personal honor by taking a bribe from Reid. The bribe lets Nelson's state avoid its full share of the cost of national health, forcing other states (you and I) to pay more. Regardless of Nelson's disgrace, I'm linking my letter below because it addresses some of the ultimate dangers of allowing any further encroachment by national government into our private lives.

As you read my letter, remember that journalism, in the sense of fact-finding and objective analysis, no longer exists in the popular media. For too many years, newspapers, magazines, television, and movies have relentlessly espoused the agenda of those who believe Central Government can make better decisions about your life than you can. The bias of popular media is comforting to many people. It teaches that increased spending, higher taxes (on the other guy), bigger government, and more regulation (of the other guy) will solve whatever problem might exist. That pervasive and relentless message, coupled with our natural reluctance to believe that The Land of the Free and The Home of the Brave could be destroyed by incremental socialism, have made such destruction likely to happen.

Now, it's not merely likely to happen-- it has begun. Nothing demonstrates that fact better than the election of Obama. He was elected in spite of his background (or lack of background), in spite of his undisputed close ties with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and America-damner Jerimiah Wright, in spite of his lack of solid accomplishments (beyond getting elected, which a machine can do for anyone), and in spite of his own socialist speech ("I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."), and in spite of his close ties with the corrupt partisan group ACORN. All of these things were either ignored or, where they could not be ignored, downplayed by the media, as they continued their breathless cheerleading. Too few people heard facts or objective analysis. Too many relied on TV and newspapers.
    benNelson.doc 27,648 bytes


        Posted Dec2009 by sls:
You might like this song. It recalls for me not only our men and women who are now serving, but those who, along with their families, have made unbearable sacrifices throughout our history to ensure that the Great American Experiment will endure.

This is the video, in .flv (flash) format, .MPG format, .AVI format, and an AVI especially formatted for small PDA screens:
    AmericanSoldier.flv 10,046,496 bytes
    AmericanSoldier.MPG 19,462,144 bytes
    AmericanSoldier.AVI 13,742,196 bytes
    AmericanSoldier-pda.AVI 5,996,730 bytes
I ripped the music from the video, and uploaded it here, in MP3 format:
    AmericanSoldier.MP3 3,889,978 bytes
Here are the words, in a Word2003 document:
    AmericanSoldierLyrics.doc 22,016 bytes


        Posted Apr2009 by sls:
Ray Charles -- There's a reason he's called "The Genius":
    AmericaTheBeautiful.flv 8,980,226 bytes
    AmericaTheBeautiful.MPG 23,132,160 bytes
    AmericaTheBeautiful.AVI 18,204,006 bytes
    AmericaTheBeautiful-pda.AVI 5,720,216 bytes
    AmericaTheBeautiful.MP3 3889978 bytes

        Posted Apr2009 by sls:
Excerpt from
The Lay of the Last Minstrel
by Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)

Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored , and unsung.

Scott's poem comes mind whenever I hear of Obama's apologetic attitude about America, especially during his foreign trips.


---

This is different. Never before have so many Apologizers, Appeasers, World-govenment proponents, and manifest America-haters taken over the White House, the Congress, and the Courts.

We, who never before may have thought much about our freedom, can no longer rest assured that Constitutional limits and balances will make everything all right. No, things will not be all right this time, because the balance is gone, and the limits are ignored by those in power.. That's why, back in October 2008, I began to do what I could to try to perserve American principles and values. Each of us can do something -- talking about it is doing something.

Thanks for your time. --Sid        2009dec22(15:00)-sls