Episode 354: Courts and Mental Health Industry Destroying the Republic

Courts destroy constitution

Is this fact? Is it True?

Video available on Rumble or Brighteon and YouTube 

The Courts and the Mental Health Industry are destroyers of the Republic. The perspective regarding the Courts was predicted by the Anti-federalists. I have discussed what Robert Yates wrote on a number of different programs, see here, here and here for starts. Recently we see that Justice Sotomayor is one of the ilk that the Anti-federalists warned about. I look into her statement in the article, ‘Sotomayor accuses conservatives of ‘dismantling’ church-state separation BY JOHN KRUZEL – 06/21/22 11:32 AM ET.’ My specific interest is in the first clause of the 1st Amendment..

The afore mentioned Justice, as with all others who continue the deception of ‘church-state separation’ need to restudy original intent. But they don’t care about Foundational Principles or original intent.

There has been a greater attack on the first clause of the 1st Amendment then most realize. There are significant founding documents that clearly show what that the establishment clause for religion is specific and limited only to the federal government setting up a national religion. As such, I submit these references, which are in this link from The Founders Constitution and are delineated in the Reference section of this Newsletter.

Always more to say than there is time to discuss.

Mental Health Industry Adds to Destruction of Republic mental health industry

When I was completing my degree in Behavioral Science, 1982, I had to attend classes and seminars that was still, at that time, called immoral.

Yet, the Christian community and pastors took no notice of what was happening in academia or the pseudo science of psychology and associated disciplines. I was frustrated to see that there were no real solutions as a Christian in this area. Pastoring seemed the only option yet that calling has a very expansive arena and demands.

So here we are, as we look at the various reports listed in the References, the Mental Health industry is worth Billions upon Billions of dollars. It is very sad and disgusting to see the investment dollars going into everything from research to Apps on your smartphone.

What is worse, is that the mental health industry is the promoter and protector of destructive behavior and what used to be called perversion. Yes, this is where the mental health industry becomes a key contributor to the moral destruction of the Republic since as John Adams and James Madison stated regarding our Constitution being only for a moral and religious/virtuous people.

The mental health industry destroys morality and virtue.

I talk about this in relationship to the mental health board that I once sat upon.


Program outline:

First segment: The Courts Destroying the Republic

  • First Amendment – Religion and Free Speech

  • Review references from Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Original Constitution of New-Haven

– Second Segment: Geauga County Mental Health Board

  • The deeper relevance of mental health degrading and destroying morality, family, religion, Constitutionalism and the Republic

  • Introduction of mental health industry as multi-billion dollar industry

– Third segment: Pithy Letter by Sam Adams and more

  • Complete discussion of mental health industry.

  • Sam Adams letter signed ‘A Tory’, Boston Gazette, May I, 1769.

Sam Adams Wisdom

TO ARTHUR LEE. [R. H. Lee, Life of Arthur Lee, vol. ii., pp. 173-577.] BOSTON, July 31st, 1771.

‘It has been observed that the nearer any man approaches to an absolute independence, the more he will be flattered; and flattery is always great in proportion as the motives of flatterers are bad. These observations are so disgraceful to human nature that I wish I could say they were not founded in experience. Perhaps there never was a man in this province more flattered, or who bore it better, I mean who was better pleased with it, than Governor Hutchinson. You have seen Miss in her teens, surrounded with dying lovers, praising her gay ribbons, the dimples in her cheeks or the tip of her ear! In imitation of the mother country, whom we are too apt to imitate in fopperies, addresses have been procured and presented to his excellency, chiefly from dependants and expectants. Indeed some of the clergy have run into the stream of civility, which is the more astonishing, when it is considered that they altogether depend upon the ability and good disposition of their parishes for their support. But it is certain that not a fifth part, some say not an eighth part of the clergy, were present. It cannot, therefore, be said to be the language of the body of the clergy, and all ages have seen that some of that order have ever been ready to sacrifice the rights as well as the honoured religion of their country, to the smiles of the great. It is a sore mortification that the independent house of representatives, and the town of Boston have refused to make their compliments to a man, whose administration since the departure of the Nettleham Baronet, they can by no means approve of. From hence you will judge whether these addresses speak the sentiments of the people in general, or are any more than the foul breath of sycophants and hirelings.’


[Boston Gazette, August 5, 1771.j Messieurs EDES & GILL,

‘One who stiles himself, in Mr. Draper’s paper, a Layman, having repeatedly endeavoured in vain to make the Public believe, that the paper presented to governor Hutchinson, by about a fifth part, according to his own account, and as others say, not more than an eighth part of the congregational ministers of this province, ought still to be called “an address of the congregational ministers of this province”; and that its being thus represented in the newspapers, did not betray any want of that simplicity and godly sincerity, which we have so often heard inculcated from the pulpit; and what is still more extraordinary in a vindication of reverend addressers, having sneer’d at me for expressing my regard for these and other eminent christian graces, which however, I have reason to hope are the peculiar ornaments of the generality of the ministers of that denomination; I say, after all this, he proceeds to tell us, that there never has been an instance of a majority of the clergy present at any convention; and that the individuals who compose that reverend corporate body, as he would fain have us think it to be, have never before been notified of such political or other matters as a few of them may have taken it into their heads to transact at any future time or place – Are we to infer from thence by any means, that it was fair to call this the address of the body of the congregational ministers of the province? For so it was manifestly intended to be understood, and so it is plain his Excellency himself chose to understand it, as appears by his calling it in his answer, “so kind, so affectionate an address, from so respectable and venerable a body of men ” – Aye, but says the Layman, it has been customary for a minority of the congregational ministers of the province, to meet in convention, and address the new governors, without notifying the majority of them, (who have always been absent) of the matter. If this be true, it argues that such former addresses can no more than the last, be fairly called addresses of the body of the clergy, or be so represented or receive – This Layman, as he calls himself, mentions the convention in one of his performances, as acting like “other corporate bodies,” at the meetings of which the presence of a majority of the members may not be necessary to warrant their proceedings; but he does not incline to answer my question, viz. When and by whom they were incorporated? But if they had been a corporate body, the members should have been duly warned of the matters to be transacted, as well as the time and place; otherwise, who does not know that their proceedings must be invalid? To be sure if, without such notification, not a sixth part of them should be present, which is the fact, no one in his senses would plead that they could with fairness be called the proceedings of that corporate body – However, thus it has been represented by the Layman: The reverend addressers themselves, call their address, “An address of the ministers of the congregational churches in the province,” and his Excellency receives it very kindly, as coming from so “respectable and venerable a body ” – Whatever some of those reverend gentlemen, (I care not how small a number is supposed, for I would be tender of the character of the cloth,) I say, whether some of them might not think, that if the address was supposed to be the declared sentiment of the whole body of the clergy of the province, it would be further supposed, to speak the sentiments of the whole body of the people of the province, and whether they were not under this temptation to give their address so pompous an introduction, I will not presume to say; I shall only in my usual way, and with my usual modesty, as the Layman witnesses, ask whether there is not reason to think it. If this was actually the case, I will just remark, that though the body of the people of this province, treat the clergy, as I hope they always will, with all due respect, yet they are not priest-ridden as in some other parts of the world, and I hope in God they never will be – They claim a right of private judgment; and they will always venture to express their own sentiments of men or things, of politicks or religion, against the sentiments of the clergy, whenever they think the clergy in the wrong

This indefatigable Layman threatens to “chastise” me for falshood, in saying I had heard, or “it is said” that this is the first instance of an address ever made to a governor by the convention; but strictly speaking it was truly said, according to his own account; for if a majority of the members which compose the convention, have never met, nor any of the members ever been notified of time, place or matters to be transacted, how can any act be said to have been the act of the convention? But this is not what I intended – I was told, or to use my own words, it was said in my hearing, that this was the first address to a governor ever made by the convention: I understood it to be the first address ever made to a governor by any number of ministers calling themselves the ministers of the congregational churches of this province met in convention: The Layman has convinced me that I was misinformed: Does it follow that I am chargeable with falshood? a gross violation of truth? Fie, fie, Layman! As your client’s cause requires the utmost candor, learn to exercise a little of it towards others; it is a shame for you to rail in behalf of the clergy – An instance is bro’t of an address to Governor Pownal, and another to Bernard! But in neither of these instances, as the Layman tells us, were the members of the convention notified, or the majority of them present. Perhaps only SEVENTEEN met, and an hour before the usual time, as was said by one of the convention to be the case, when the late address was first carried. The Layman indeed insists upon twenty-four; it is immaterial as I said before, since either of these numbers is inconsiderable, in comparison with 300, some say 400 ministers of that denomination in the province. If the Layman thinks it material, I am sorry the Rev. Dr. who presided at the meeting, though repeatedly requested, will not condescend to ascertain it for him – With regard to addresses to governors upon their promotion, so far as it can be presumed that they are well qualified and well dispos’d to employ their shining talents, (for such they all have, if we are to believe the late addresses here and elsewhere,) and to make themselves “diffusive blessings in their exalted stations,” those of the clergy and others, who are so very fond of congratulating, let them congratulate, if they please. I believe many of the clergymen who congratulated the Nettleham baronet, and others besides, have since been fully convinced that they have no reason to pride themselves in it. The truth is, every man in power will be adulated by some sort of men in every country, because he is a man in power – TRYON arrives from the bloody scenes of Alamance, and receives the high encomiums of New York, the clergy as well as others, for having “saved a sister colony” by his noble exploit; and another is flattered as being the “father of his country,” and “the delight of an obliged and grateful people,” by those very men who now detest the administration of BERNARD whom they had before cannonized, altho’ he has assured his noble patron, and many believe it, that this Father of his country is just such an one as himself; that he is pushing forward with the utmost vehemence, tho’ in different modes, the same measures, and that he may be depended upon by his Lordship equally with himself. I am with great respect to the congregational ministers,


Notes on the Court Not Covered on the program

Page 107, #76. Joseph Story commentaries

In respect to conquered and ceded countries, which have already laws of their own, a different rule prevails. In such cases the crown has a right to abrogate the former laws, and institute new ones. But until such new laws are promulgated, the old laws and customs of the country remain in full force, unless so far as they are contrary to our religion, or enact any thing, that is malum in se ; for in all such cases the laws of the conquering or acquiring country shall prevail. This qualification of the rule arises from the presumption, that the crown could never intend to sanction laws contrary to religion or sound morals. But although the king has thus the power to change the laws of ceded and conquered countries, the power is not unlimited.

Rules of Interpretation: CH. V. Page 205 actual page 161,

… Again, it is declared, that ” congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which seems to prohibit any laws, which shall recognize, found, confirm, or patronize any particular religion, or form of religion, whether permanent or temporary, whether already existing, or to arise in future. In this clause, establishment seems equivalent in meaning to settlement, recognition, or support. And again, in the preamble, it is said, ” We, the people, &c. do ordain and establish this constitution,” &c. where the most appropriate sense seems to be to create, to ratify, and to confirm.

Samuel Adams writes his next installment to the Boston Gazette on April 11, 1768, that ideological shifts are more destructive to civil rights, being natural and Constitutional Rights, than any legislative act or bureaucratic / administrative dictate. Sam discusses the Stamp Act as having been ‘contrived with a design only to inure the people to the habit of contemplating themselves as the slaves of men; and the transition from thence to a subjection to Satan, is mighty easy.’

With this in mind, I will be discussing the early Founders concerns about popery as the ideological and philosophical menace that it was then to the ideologies that have imbedded themselves in our society and Republic.


– Health Care Industry

1. Behavioral Health Market Size, Report 2022-2027 – Published: Mar 29, 2022

2. Mental Health & Substance Abuse Centers in the US – Market Size 2002–2027

3. U.S. Behavioral Health Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Type (Behavioral & Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Eating Disorders, Trauma/PTSD, and Others), By Payor (Public Health Insurance and Private Health Insurance/Out-of-Pocket), Forecast

4. Mental Health Market by Disorders: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2021–2030

5. Mental Health Trends Shaping the Future

– Religious Liberty in 1st Amendment


John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536


The Fundamental Agreement or Original Constitution of the Colony of New-Haven, 4 June 1639


The Body of Liberties of the Massachusets Collonie in New England, 1641


Roger Williams, The Bloody Tenent, Of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, 1644


Maryland Act concerning Religion, 1649


Roger Williams to the Town of Providence, Jan. 1655


Carolina Fundamental Constitutions, 1669


King James II, Instructions to Governor Thomas Dongan, 1682


Pennsylvania Charter of Liberty, Laws Agreed Upon in England, etc., 1682


John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration, 1689


Delaware Charter of 1701, ARTS. 1, 8


Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, bk. 12, CHS. 4, 5; BK. 24, CHS. 7, 8; BK. 25, CHS. 9, 10, 12, 1748


Patrick Henry, Religious Tolerance, 1766


Benjamin Franklin, Letter to the London Packet, 3 June 1772


Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 20 Nov. 1772


James Madison to William Bradford, 24 Jan. 1774


William Bradford to James Madison, 4 Mar. 1774


James Madison to William Bradford, 1 Apr. 1774


Continental Congress to the People of Great Britain, 21 Oct. 1774


Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, 26 Oct. 1774


Isaac Backus, A History of New England 1774–75


John Adams, Novanglus, no. 4, 13 Feb. 1775


Edmund Burke, Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies, 22 Mar. 1775


Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 10 Jan. 1776


Virginia Declaration of Rights, sec. 16, 12 June 1776


Delaware Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules, 11 Sept. 1776


Maryland Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights, nos. 33–36


New Jersey Constitution of 1776, ARTS. 18, 19


North Carolina Constitution of 1776, ARTS. 19, 31–32, 34


Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights


Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, bk. 5, CH. 1, PT. 3, ART. 3, 1776


Thomas Jefferson, Draft of Bill Exempting Dissenters from Contributing to the Support of the Church, 30 Nov. 1776


George Mason, Amendment to the Bill Exempting Dissenters from Contributions to the Established Church, 5 Dec. 1776


New York Constitution of 1777, ARTS. 38, 39


Vermont Constitution of 1777, CH. 1, SEC. 3; CH. 2, SEC. 41


South Carolina Constitution of 1778, ARTS. 21, 38


Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, 12 June 1779


Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, PT. 1, ARTS. 2, 3


Benjamin Rush to John Armstrong, 19 Mar. 1783


Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 157–61, 1784


John Blair to James Madison, 21 June 1784


New Hampshire Constitution of 1784, PT. 1, ARTS. 4, 5, 6, 13


James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 20 June 1785


Virginia, Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, 31 Oct. 1785


Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821


Vermont Constitution of 1786, CH. 1, ART. 3


An Old Whig, no. 5, Fall 1787


A [Maryland] Farmer, no. 7, 11 Apr. 1788


James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 12 June 1788


Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 12 June 1788


Virginia Ratifying Convention, Proposed Amendments, 27 June 1788


Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 30 July 1788


House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 15, 17, 20 Aug. 1789


George Washington, Proclamation: A National Thanksgiving, 3 Oct. 1789


Tench Coxe, Notes concerning the United States of America, 1790


Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, 5 Dec. 1791


Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, pt. 1, 1791


Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Association, 1 Jan. 1802


St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, 1:App. 296–97, 2:App. 3–11, 1803


Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller, 23 Jan. 1808


House of Representatives, Returned Bill, 21, 23 Feb. 1811


People v. Ruggles


James Madison, Proclamation, 16 Nov. 1814


James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1817


Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 16 June 1817


James Madison to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822


William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 121–23 1829 (2d ed.)


James Madison to Rev. Adams, 1832


Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1865–73, 1833


Interested in Historical Truth?

Sign up to receive awesome content, every week.

Comments Off on Episode 354: Courts and Mental Health Industry Destroying the Republic

Filed under Radio Program Archives

Comments are closed.