Contrary to the 20th Century Zeitgeist, it turns out that many things we needed to learn, we didn't learn in kindergarten... or college. In none of our government school  classes, did we learn about the "self–eviden[cy]"  essential to self-government.
Unfortunately, those of us who attended private school did not learn much about natural law there either.
Gangster government has an inherent conflict of interest. If gangster government can disempower us from the "self–evident" teaching from "Nature and Nature's God," then gangster government can deny us the exercise of our unalienable rights and make us its servant.
Imagine that: We the people created the federal government only to have the federal government forsake its very limited enumerated powers and become our political slave-master.
We've been owned. Fairness would dictate that we get a refund for the tax dollars we spent that only served to politically injure us. But gangster government is far more interested in giving our money to foreign Mohammadian political regimes and to "piss Christ" government funded "art" than in rectifying its own criminal departure from natural law.
Without further delay, let us now learn some of these "self–evident" matters that our forefathers knew.
The agrarian culture of our forefathers is intellectually superior to the 20th century law-school culture
Being agrarian, our forefathers possessed an intellectually superior knowledge. They were immersed in an epistemologically superior culture.
Whereas our forefathers negotiated with "Nature and Nature's God" to make their farms profitable, our gangster government negotiates wealth confiscation to buy votes from the entitlement classes.
To gangster government, it matters not that the Constitution makes no provision for this evil scheme, which exploits the wealth producer's unprincipled desire  to be unmolested (so that he concedes to the present inconvenience knowing that the burden of government could be worse) and consumer class's demand for more free lunches, free "education," free phones, free rent, and free money for procreating illegitimate children.
Indeed, it takes an illegitimate government to incentivize the creation of fatherless children. Our own gangster government also subsidizes dismembering children in the natural nourishing comfort of their mother's womb...
But enough of our government for the moment. Let us learn something so that we might constrain government by something other than Molotov cocktails and hollow point bullets.
Evolutionism could not be more wrong
Imagine that we build a sandcastle having detailed features and sharp corners on vertical walls. Now, imagine said sandcastle being exposed to the elements (or what evolutionists call "random processes"): diurnal thermal and humidity cycling, wind, precipitation, freezing, thawing and sublimation, contamination from leaves and other debris, animal contact, a hit from a wayward Frisbee or a falling bird dropping .... Because this deterioration is thermodynamic in nature, the particular mechanism of deterioration is not so important. Those who quibble about it being the case that it is merely the total entropy of the universe which must increase -- so that the entropy of the castle could actually decrease -- analogously quibble that there were pockets of air trapped on the Titanic the night she sank. Fine. One can readily concede such pockets. But to the bona fide scientist or to the bone fide ship builder, it was nonetheless obvious that the hemorrhaging ship would quickly go down.
It is apparently above the acumen for a multicultural rocket scientist to appreciate what happens to the sandcastle such that he might divine something of his own history. Instead, said multiculturalist will wax on about how minerals in a pond birthed a tadpole which in turn, by the miracle of random processes, intra-generationally morphs into Homo sapiens sapiens.
In the sandcastle experiment, time is the enemy to creation. Yet according to evolutionism's accounting, time is the fertile soil for all manner of information production.
Tellingly, the multiculturalist has yet to connect his practice -- bringing the car to the car shop, calling a plumber to repair the plumbing, calling the roofer to install a new roof...-- to his faith in evolutionism.
But the farmer does not suffer from such dissonance.
The farmer will readily tell us that the high definition of the sandcastle will deteriorate. Random processes -- it matters not which natural or random processes participate -- all produce the same predictable basic less-structured heap of sand.
The multiculturalist fails to understand that the evolutionary narrative has it exactly backwards. Evolutionism could not be more wrong. Whereas evolutionism claims that natural processes produce genotypic information and fantastic structures, nature itself is not beholden to neo-Darwinism's power point presentations. Nature does not heed these multicultural dictates, but moves in the direction of its own: The opposite direction.
In a world where our daily observations testify that all is winding down, the presence of order and structure and design speak of hope. Our forefathers saw this hope. They could put order and decay together and emerge with the "self–evident" epiphany: There is a Creator-God. Indeed the sense of conscience that we universally possess -- that the poor or colored are created with equal unalienable rights to the wealthy white man -- is a stamp imprinted by our common Maker .
From the observations of a decaying world, our forefathers thus found mankind's unalienable rights. From the jaws of physical defeat, our genius founders snatched metaphysical and political victory. From the physical world, our founders found God and our beloved unalienable rights.
Our elites fail to even define their core concepts
In contrast, the dominant media and academic culture in America and the West defines "science" to be intolerant of "a divine foot in the door." On the basis of their own God-hating prejudices, America's ignorant elites thus slam the door on both God and our unalienable rights.
But the elites fail not only to define "science," correctly, but they fail to meaningfully define their own beloved "evolution" as well. I am an anti-evolutionist, a devolutionist. Gene frequencies change over time, but in a devolutionary, and not an evolutionary fashion. Just as any natural process leads to the destruction of order in the sandcastle experiment, so it is that any natural process leads to the destruction or loss of genotypic information. Having spent trillions of dollars on evolutionism science has yet to identify a single beneficial mutation. To naively define evolution as "a change in gene frequency over time" is thus to fail to distinguish evolution from its polar opposite: Devolution.
When one reads a book, where the subject is not distinguished from its polar opposite, it is safe to conclude that in reading said book the reader will learn nothing helpful on the subject. Yet these are the very fools who reflexively mock the epistemology of intelligence and design.
Imagine paying dearly for an education that functions to make belligerent fools.
Of the hundreds of collegiate evolutionism text books I have examined, not one, has made the basic and essential distinction between devolution and evolutionism. 
The religious hypocrisy of our elites
Toward a coherent and freedom-supporting American culture
While perhaps most of us at kindergarten age instinctively knew that nature surrounded us with evidence of design, gangster government school sought to expel this knowledge from us.
America was not founded upon multiculturalism, but upon the mono-cultural idea that the decaying work of nature reveals a supernatural Designer. E Pluribus Unum suggests that true political progress is achieved by standing multiculturalism, evolutionism and materialism on its head.
If nature does not heed the evolutionary doctrine enshrined in gangster government power point presentations, then perhaps it is past time for a revolution.
 While the term "public school" is more common, the term "government school" is more correct. If the government school was truly public, then individuals could sell their interest in the educational system, or excuse themselves from its funding.
 Many of the unsubstantiated quotes are from The Declaration of Independence.
 In contrast to an unprincipled response, consider, "It is true, we are denying to pay the duty upon tea; but it is not for the value of the thing itself. It is because we cannot submit to that, without acknowledging the principle upon which it is founded, and that principle is a right to tax us in all cases whatsoever." Alexander Hamilton 1774
 See the terse 14 page masterpiece (called "Book One") of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.
 As an example, the Wikipedia entry for "evolution" notes "The frequency of one particular allele will become more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Variation disappears when a new allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely." But a change in the frequency of genes and mere "variation" can all be classified as devolutionary. Indeed I contend that apart from Creation, every known instance of either (phenotypic) variation or (genotypic) gene frequency change is devolutionary—and not evolutionary—in nature.
Wikipedia's entry for "microevolution" voguishly, foolishly and belligerently declares "Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population."Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.