Dr. Dan Eichenbaum explains the basis of our government, natural law and freedom:

Agenda 21 – Sustainable Development

In researching for this presentation, I was reminded about the movie teaser for “Jaws” – “Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water . . . . . “ Read more »

The involvement of the federal government in the education process has decreased the overall quality of education and restricted parents’ freedom to choose the proper educational venue for their children. Decisions about a child’s education properly belong to the parents and, by extension, to school boards elected by the local community. The fact that the per pupil cost of public education is double that of private schools highlights the inefficiency of programs run by our federal government. In addition, mandates associated with federal control of education have created curricula that promote particular political and societal viewpoints that are more propaganda and indoctrination than the teaching of essential skills. Recently, I attended a symposium on homeschooling given by attorney Michael Farris. His insight into the methods and benefits of homeschooling helped me formulate a coherent policy on this critical issue.

As your representative in Congress, I will introduce legislation to undo the relationship between the federal government and education. I will also sponsor legislation that protects freedom of choice for parents so that they can decide what educational programs are best for their children. As more and more parents turn to private schooling and homeschooling to educate their children, I will support and encourage the privatization and individualization of education to improve each child’s opportunity for success in life. In the process of bringing more choices into education, we should encourage homeschooling as much as possible.

Trust In Freedom,
Dr. Dan Eichenbaum

http://DrDan4Congress.com

The right of self-defense, to protect one’s person, one’s family, and one’s property, is a fundamental part of individual freedom, and, as such is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The phrase, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, is undeniably clear. Anti-gun advocates, however, have long tried to use the initial phrase, “a well regulated militia”, to modify and restrict the otherwise explicit meaning of the amendment. In his book, “The Founders’ Second Amendment”, Stephen P. Halbrook discusses the relationship between the initial “purpose” clause and the substantive “right” clause. The phrase “the right of the people” appears in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments and, in all cases, refers to the rights both of individuals and to individuals as part of a group. The phrase “to keep and bear arms” refers not only to ownership, but also to the usage and the carrying of weapons on one’s person. The phrase “shall not be infringed” is an absolute prohibition as opposed to the conditional wording in the Fourth Amendment regarding “unreasonable” search and seizures. In terms of the “purpose” clause, it is generally accepted that the founders understood that proficiency in the use of arms was a benefit personally as well as for the protection of the country when a militia was needed. Halbrook then states, “the purpose clause does not negate the right.” Furthermore, “rights” belong to the people while “power” resides in the governmental sphere. The founders also recognized that an armed citizenry was important to prevent a tyrannical central government from seizing dictatorial power. Throughout history, dictators have sought to disarm the population to seize and hold power. Prior to the Revolutionary War, the British attempted to confiscate the colonists’ guns to reduce the likelihood of rebellion. In 1929, the Weimar Republic passed gun registration laws that were used by Hitler in 1938 to seize weapons and arrest persons deemed “undesirable” by the Gestapo. The Gestapo’s 2nd-in-command, Dr. Werner Best, wrote in 1935: “As a rule, we have to assume that firearms in the hands of the Jews represent a considerable danger for the German people.” If we alter that statement using two blanks, (“Firearms in the hands of ________ are a considerable danger for ______”), it is easy to see how any repressive regime can use laws for the registration and confiscation of firearms as a means to control and enslave the population. Dr. Dan believes that the “right to keep and bear arms” is absolute and will fight vigorously any attempt, legislative or bureaucratic, to infringe on the Second Amendment. In addition, Dr. Dan will introduce and support any legislation that will restore this Right as the founders intended.

For more information please visit Dr. Dan’s website.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704429304574467071019099570.html