Senator Bennett Responds To Wayne Holland

Finally someone stands up to the whining and complaining of the Utah Democrats. I'm glad that Senator Bennett wrote this opinion piece in response to the post by Wayne Holland. He mentions everything that I've been saying and I'm happy to see it.

It's about time!

The Democrats Celebrate Easter

Recently I commented on the plight of the Democrats in Utah and their constant complaining about Utah being a one-party state. I've linked to the press release by the National Democratic Committee, written by Howard Dean. If this doesn't let you know that the Democrats refuse to recognize God and Jesus Christ, then I'm not sure what you need to convince you.

In the press release, there is absolutely NO mention of Jesus and His suffering for the sins of mankind and His resurrection. Incredible? Not really when you consider the source. In their attempt to appease everyone and all times, the Democrats can not celebrate Easter for the real reason it exists. They do the same thing to Christmas.

To Wayne Holland: This is NOT a party I would want to associate with. Sorry!

Great Day In America For Babies!

What a great day it is for babies in the land we call America! The Supreme Court has ruled that delivering a baby all the way through the birth canal, except for the head and then puncturing its skull and sucking out its brains is now illegal.

It's truly amazing that this was considered legal in the first place. Those who favor killing babies for any reason like to use various words to describe the baby so they don't attach any humanity to it. While those names might be medically correct, the "thing", "fetus", "unviable cells" are always and will ALWAYS be a child. As if saying the baby can't live on its own outside the womb really makes a difference in the decision to kill it. Incredible. And people really believe this. Just goes to show that if you say a lie long enough, you actually come to believe it.

People like Hillary Clinton and other presidential candidates and national women's organizations say that there isn't an exception for the health of the mother and it's a gloom and doom day for American women. Can anyone show that there is one case of partial-birth abortion where the health of the mother was the issue? Even the former Surgeon General C. Everett Coop has stated that there isn't any medical health issue that would present itself in the name of the health of the mother.

Those who oppose this decision are claiming that the Supreme Court ignored over 30 years of rule of law. Well, how about over 150 years of rule of law that the Court ignored when it discovered a "right to an abortion" in the Constitution! There is no right and all abortions should be illegal. Convenience abortions are the most common in the land of America. How convenient that someone continues to have sexual relations and damn the consequences. Incredible. If you don't want to have a baby, then stop have sex. That's your choice. Once conception happens, it's not just about YOU any longer. YOU are carrying a child and as its mother, you should do everything possible to protect your child from harm and danger.

This is a great day for babies in America! Long overdue and a crusade that needs to continue until all abortions are illegal.

Catholic Bishop Stands Up For The Unborn

Kudos to Bishop Hernandez for standing up for righteous and for the unborn who lost their voice to "convenience" and "choice".

I read a statistic the other day that said only 1% of abortions are performed for the health of the mother. If that statistic is true, then what does the remaining 99% say about our society?

Abortion is the great evil perpetrated on society by those who are morally bankrupt. This evil will be the biggest stain that our society has ever seen.

Way to go Bishop Hernandez! Now if the rest of the world would get their collective backbone and stand up for something.

Democrats Dialogue In Action Again

Another great demonstration of "dialogue" by those who choose to behave foolishly when they disagree with something or someone. Sure do your protesting if it makes you feel good. Funny how conservatives aren't blocking the road of anyone or any speech.

You go Democrats!

Utah Democrats Still Complaining

It is sad that the Utah Democrats are still complaining they don't have an equal say in what happens in this state. The constant cries of this being a one-party state continue to fall on deaf ears. Why? I've written many times on this issue but they don't seem to listen.

When the Democrats start to believe in issues that I believe in, then I might consider voting for them. Today's Democrats are NOT like the Democrats of the pre-70's.

Today the Democrats believe it is just fine to murder a million or so babies a year. They don't call them babies so it makes it justified. They won't even say that partial-birth abortion is wrong!

Democrats don't believe in moral values of any kind. They preach that whatever someone wants to do is just fine. No judgments on misbehaving please. It's interesting that the Democrats have buddied up with the likes of NAMBLA and all the homosexual groups one can name. This behavior is wrong and should not be accepted.

The list could go on and on forever about the socialist agenda the Democrats have and are trying to perpetuate on all of us. Socialism is a failed government and should be rejected at all costs. Please read The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen for enlightenment.

All one has to do is look at New Orleans when the storms hit as a perfect example of the Democrats plan in action. What was the response of all of the government officials, particularly Mayor 'Chocolate drink' Nagin? Where is the government? Why aren't they hear to help us? Call in the federal government to bail us out! Blame someone else Mayor for your ignorance of where you live and actually having an emergency plan.

After 60 years of Democratic reign, all they have trained the people to do is look for a government hand out. Did you see anyone take any personal responsibility to heed the warnings and get out of town? NO!

That's the number one issue with Democratic beliefs; the government is there for you for any and all reasons. No personal responsibility and accountability. The government will make it alright and fair. No one should have more than anyone else. Those who are considered wealthy earned it at the expense of the poor people so we will take from them and give it to you. Don't do anymore that what you are doing. Sure, you can have as many babies as you like and don't worry about who the father is, we will take care of you. This mess isn't your fault!

So Wayne Holland, until you get a point of view that people in this state agree with, consider yourself on the outside. By the way, do you hear Republicans crying about a one-party state in Massachusetts, Vermont, California etc? You could always move to one of those states and be in the majority.... but then, what would you have to complain about!

General Conference

Wow, wasn't General Conference wonderful? I thought it was fantastic. I missed the Saturday morning session because my son had baseball practice, but was able to watch the rest of it.

I was particularly stricken with the talks by Elders Ballard and Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve and Gary Coleman from the Seventy. I thought their testimonies rang through loud and clear regarding the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

President Hinckley's remarks at the close of the Sunday morning session were also wonderful and inspiring.

If you missed conference you should listen or watch it at LDS.org and hear the wonderful testimonies given by the Prophet of God and His Apostles. It's so exhilarating to be able to pitch our tents towards the tower and listen like those of old who listened to King Benjamin.

Now comes the responsibility of living up to what has been asked of us. I'm sure that my conference edition of the Ensign will be well-worn by the time October comes around.

My daughter was sad that Sister Beck was released from the Young Women's organization. Sister Beck is in our stake and we have had a few chances to meet and speak with her. She is a marvelous lady and will be an inspiration to those in the Relief Society.

Ask The Clinton's About Firing US Attorney's

Again, another non-story whipped up by the media to drag Pres. Bush through the mud. The hypocrisy is mind numbing and unbelievable. How do these people get on the air and why do people even believe a thing they say.

Ask Hillary about firing US Attorney's.

Andrew McCarthy writes a wonderful dissertation on the hypocrisy of the Democrats and the media regarding the firings.

Rush Cleans Up The Misconception About The Libby Verdict

Rush Limbaugh did a fantastic job of laying out the hypocrisy of the Main Stream Media. I've linked to his website for you to take a read and possibly a listen.

One question that has yet to be answered by all the MSM pundits; If this whole investigation was all about finding out who 'outed' a 'supposedly covert' Valerie Plame, then why hasn't Dick Armitage been indicted? After all is was Mr. Armitage who came forward and said he was the leak!

And, why did Mr. Fitzgerald continue on with the investigation once he knew that Mr. Armitage was the 'leak'?

Questions that Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer and the gang will never ask, nor do they care to get the answers. All the MSM wants is heads to roll in the Bush Whitehouse.

This is what blind rage/hate/enmity will do to one's soul. Just look at how many people have sold their principles to the highest bidder (the devil) because of their hate. It truly is incredible the length people will go to drag someone down with whom they disagree.

John Edwards and Jesus

John Edwards recently stated "Jesus would be appalled at how the United States has ignored the plight of the suffering, and that he believes children should have private time to pray at school."

While I don't necessarily disagree that we can do more than what we as a nation are already doing I'm waiting for Mr. Edwards to finish his list of things with which he feels Jesus would be appalled.

Does he think that Jesus would be impressed with his rationale to support abortion - the killing of babies?

Does he think that Jesus would be impressed with his rationale to openly accept and purpetuate the plight of those who follow the path of homosexuality?

Does he think that Jesus would be impressed with his history of how he made his money as a lawyer?

Mr. Edwards, I certainly don't speak for Jesus, but I'm not sure he would agree with anything on your agenda outside of helping the poor. Please don't try to speak for Christ when He speaks for himself and already has and continues to do so.

Once you adhere to ALL of what Christ has said, then you can tell us how spiritual you are and how you are guided by your faith.

Mitt Romney and Polygamy

Here is the "extremely relevant" article by the AP about the polygamist past in Mitt Romney's family tree. This is such a nonstarter I don't know where to begin. What does the AP and all of the neigh sayers want Mitt to do about his history? Do they want him to go back and change it? Do they want him to embrace it?

Interesting that with all of the brouhaha about the "Mormon concerns" and now the "polygamist past" that Mitt is the only one who has been married to one wife.

I also look forward to the "in depth" articles about all of the religions and family trees for each and every candidate for the presidency of the US. And then explain to me the relevance!

Romney family tree has polygamy branch

By JENNIFER DOBNER and GLEN JOHNSON

Associated Press Writers
Sat Feb 24, 6:02 PM ET

SALT LAKE CITY - While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Romney's great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she "used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow" over her own husband's multiple marriages.

Romney's great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt's brother and fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.

Romney's father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued "The Manifesto" banning polygamy.

"When you read the family's history, you realize how important polygamy was to them," said Todd Compton, a Mormon and independent historian who wrote a book about the polygamous life of the church's founder, Joseph Smith. "They left America and started again as pioneers, after they had done it over and over again previously."

B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was "a very important part of Miles Park Romney's family."

Hardy added: "Now, very gradually, as you moved farther away from it, it became less a part of it. But during the time of Miles Park Romney, it was an essential principle of the Romney family life."

Other Mormons have run for the White House, including Romney's father in 1968 and Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, in 2000. But Mitt Romney's stature as a leading 2008 contender has renewed questions about his faith and its doctrines.

At the same time, polygamy remains a part of current events.

HBO is airing a television series, "Big Love," that features a man in Utah — where the Mormon church is based — with three wives. Self-proclaimed "Mormon fundamentalist" Warren Jeffs, formerly on the
FBI's 10 most wanted list, is facing multiple felony charges for sex crimes related to underage marriages among members of his breakaway church's 10,000 members in Utah and Arizona, who openly practice polygamy.

Romney has joked about polygamy, saying in various settings that to him, "marriage is between a man and a woman ... and a woman and a woman." But in serious moments he has called the practice "bizarre" and noted his church excommunicates those who engage in it.

An introductory film played at his fundraisers and campaign appearances features his wife, Ann, talking about their 37-year marriage. Romney himself notes they started as high school sweethearts.

This month, Ann Romney tried a different tack, taking a lighthearted jab at her husband's main Republican competitors, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as she introduced Romney at a Missouri GOP dinner.

The biggest difference between her husband and the other candidates, Ann Romney said, is that "he's had only one wife."

McCain has been married twice; Giuliani three times.

The Romney campaign had no comment for this story.

Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon church in 1830, quietly introduced polygamy. He believed it had roots in the Old Testament and was necessary to reach the highest salvation in heaven. Smith is believed to have had 33 wives.

Brigham Young expanded the practice after the church's migration from the Midwest to Utah, which began in 1846. He is said to have had 55 wives. Historical texts show Young also asked Orson Pratt to publicly proclaim the church's belief in polygamy in 1852.

In 1862, while Utah was a territory, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, banning plural marriage. In 1882, Congress also passed the Edmunds Act, an anti-polygamy law. That was followed in 1887 by the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which disincorporated the church and threatened to seize its nonreligious real estate as part of the crackdown on polygamy.

In 1890, Mormon President Wilford Woodruff issued "The Manifesto," in which he declared the church no longer taught or permitted plural marriages.

Nonetheless, the law of polygamy — Smith's revelation that God authorized polygamy — remains in Article 132 of the church's Doctrine and Covenants. In addition, Mormon widowers who remarry today believe they will live in eternity with their multiple wives.

Mormon genealogical records, among the most detailed and complete of any religion, show that two of Mitt Romney's great-great grandfathers, Miles Romney and Parley Pratt, had 12 wives each.

Compton, the polygamy scholar, disputes that. He believes Miles Romney only had one wife because the records do not show the dates for his other 11 marriages or any offspring from them.

Miles Romney and his one clearly documented wife, Elizabeth Gaskell, had 10 children. Among them was Miles Park Romney, one of Mitt Romney's great-grandfathers.

Miles Park Romney had five wives. With his first wife, Hannah Hood Hill, he had 11 children. Among them was Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's paternal grandfather.

Hannah Hood Hill's autobiography offers an eyewitness account of the Romney family's polygamous past. Hardy, the Cal-State historian, found it amid research for his upcoming book, "Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy."

Hood Hill wrote of Miles Park Romney: "I felt that was more than I could endure, to have him divide his time and affections from me. I used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow. If anything will make a woman's heart ache, it is for her husband to take another wife. ... But I put my trust in my heavenly father, and prayed and pleaded with him to give me strength to bear this great trial."

Miles Park Romney's final marriage, to Emily Eyring Smith, came in 1897, more than six years after "The Manifesto."

Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's grandfather, was not a polygamist. He married Anna Amelia Pratt, the daughter of polygamists and the granddaughter of Parley Pratt, the apostle with 12 wives. Their marriage took place Feb. 20, 1895, in Dublan, Mexico.

Gaskell Romney had moved to Mexico with his parents in 1884 amid the proliferation of U.S. laws prohibiting "unlawful cohabitation." Anna Pratt was born in Utah, but had emigrated to Mexico and lived in one of nine Mormon colonies established over the border.

Gaskell Romney and Anna Pratt had seven children, including George Wilcken Romney, the former Michigan governor. He lived with his parents in Mexico until 1912, when the family returned to the United States.

George Romney married Lenore LaFount, who does not appear to have polygamy in her family tree. The couple, now deceased, had four children, including Mitt Romney.

Selective Main Stream News Coverage

Bill O'Reilly recently reported on the selective news coverage of the former head of the ACLU having child pornography on video in his home. Note the lack of coverage from those who support the ACLU and their efforts to destroy the civil liberties provided in the Constitution.

It's so comical that the mainstream media always is critical of Fox News saying they report in a biased manner. Yet, this type of news goes completely untouched by those same critics? I wonder who really is biased in their reporting of the news and only tell you what they want you to hear and read.

I certainly don't agree with all of the points made on Fox News, but I'm much more aligned with their take than that of NBC, CBS, CNN & ABC. I'm not sure why anyone is still reading the New York Times for news reporting. They are completely a liberal organization and don't seem too concerned in being out in the open on their editorials.

Our "Hearing What I Want To Hear" Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.

Our beloved governor recently stated that the federal bomb test, Divine Strake, was canceled because those in Washington DC who make the decisions heard the voice of the people. He said that the government heard our cries and concerns about more fallout being thrown into the atmosphere from the tests in the 50's. He boasted that this was a good thing for our state and those who would be directly impacted, which it probably is.

A week or so before this decision came out, the governor universally overrode the will of his own constituents and rammed through a bill that will give Real Salt Lake $35 million of taxpayer money. Ironically, over 70% of the state said they did NOT want this money to go to Dave Checketts and his minions, especially after Salt Lake County Mayor Carroon studied the financials and said it wasn't a good business decision.

I guess it is only good for the federal government to listen to the will of the people, but not the leaders of our state government. The arrogance that permeates from our Legislature and Governor Huntsman is what gives politicians the stench they deserve in the public sector.

A Really Inconvenient Truth For Mr. Al Gore

Here is a press release from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that details Al Gore's 'do as I say, not as I do' when it comes to energy conservation. I'm not big on the global warming issue and I do believe where we can conserve we should.

However, these freaks who run around the country raising all sorts of trouble should at least be leading a life of what they preach! Al and all other renegades, please stop 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling' talk. The sky won't fall until it is supposed to and for those who want to know when it is supposed to, well no one knows the exact time and hour of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Until then, "O be wise, what more can I say....."

Global Warming or another Ice Age

Only someone who has been hiding in a cave hasn't heard all the hysteria about the global warming debates. Some scientists have come to a 'conclusion' that global warming is real. However, other scientists have said there isn't any science behind their 'conclusion'.

So what is one to believe. I'll say that I'm in the non-believing camp until someone can show otherwise. I also believe scripture that tells us that their is enough 'stuff' in the world for all of us. So to all the zero population folks, I don't buy into your argument at all that there isn't enough in the world for all the population. There is!

Also with global warming. If one truly believes in scripture and particularly those that talk about the Second Coming of Christ, how does one believe that global warming will 'kill' the earth?

Thomas Sowell wrote an excellent article on this topic the other day. I've linked to it for your review.

I'm sure that there are things that we can do as a family of humans that can have a positive impact on our lives and the environment. And we should all do our best in these areas. However, I don't believe the doomsayers regarding the planet and all of their scare tactics.

Is Membership In The Kingdom Hard or Easy?

It is different; harder and easier. That may sound confusing but let me explain. Christ says “give me ALL. I don’t want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work; I want YOU! I have not come to torment your ‘natural’ self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don’t want to cut off a branch here and a branch there. I want to have the whole tree down. Hand over the whole natural self. All the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked- the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself; my own will shall become yours.”

It is both harder and easier than what we are all trying to do. You have noticed that Christ sometimes describes His way as very hard, sometimes as very easy. He says, “Take up your Cross” – in other words, it is like going to be beaten to death in a concentration camp. Next He says, “my yoke is easy and my burden light.” He means both. And one can see why both are true.

For example, teachers will tell you that the laziest boy in the class is the one who works hardest in the end. They mean this. If you give two boys, say, a proposition in geometry to do, the one who is prepared to take trouble will try to understand it. The lazy boy will try to learn it by heart because, for the moment, that needs less effort. But six months later, when they are preparing for an exam; the lazy boy is doing hours and hours of miserable drudgery over things the other boy understands in a few minuets. Laziness means more work in the long run.

It is like that here. The hard thing, the almost impossible thing, is to hand over your whole self – all your wishes and precautions - to the Savior. But it is far easier than what we are all trying to do instead. For what we are trying to do is to remain what we call ‘ourselves’; to keep personal happiness as our great aim in life, and yet at the same time be ‘good’. We are trying to let our mind and heart go their own way, centered on money or pleasure or ambition, and hoping, in spite of this to behave honestly and chastely and humble. And that is exactly what Christ warned us we could not do- serve two masters. As He said, a thistle cannot produce figs. If I am a field that contains nothing but grass seed, I cannot produce wheat. Cutting the grass may keep it short, but I shall still produce grass and no wheat. If I want to produce wheat, the change must go deeper than the surface. It must be ploughed up and re-sown.

That is why the real problem of membership in this Church or Kingdom comes where we do not usually look for it. It comes the very moment you wake up each morning. All your wishes and hopes for the day rush at you like wild animals. And the first job each morning consists simply in shoving them all back; in listening to that other voice, taking that other point of view, letting that other larger, stronger, quieter life come flowing in.

We can only do it for moments at first. But from those moments the new sort of life will be spreading through our system because we are letting His spirit work at the right part of us. He never talked vague when he said, “Be perfect.” He meant it. He meant that we must go in for the full treatment. It is hard, but the sort of compromise we are all hankering after is harder. In fact, it is impossible. It is hard for an egg to turn into a bird, but it is much harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And we cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad.

During our lives, we face this challenge of giving the Lord ‘all’ of us. This is the whole of Christ’s doctrine. There is nothing else. It is so easy to get muddled and think that the Church has a lot of different objects such as education, buildings, holding meetings, etc., but the Church exists for nothing else but to draw us, and others, into Christ, to make us little Christs. If the Church is not doing that, it is a waste of time. It is not even doubtful that we were really created for any other purpose. We have been sown the plan only in so far as it concerns ourselves and our purpose for living. We have been told and shown how we can be drawn into Christ; how we can become part of that beautiful reward He wants to offer us. And, those strange, exciting hints and feelings given us by His spirit that it is all true may at times seem like a dream from which we will awake. And when we do, the trials will be over: it will be morning.

Taken from a paradigm written by Barlow L. Packer and C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity

See.

Mosiah 3:19

Matt. 11:28-30

The Purpose of Life

Recently, a few people have been asking what is the purpose of life and a few other questions about the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Just click on the links to find the answers to the purpose of life and the Nature of God. I've also included a copy of one of the links that tells about some of the basic beliefs of the church. I hope you find this helpful.



Basic Beliefs

You may have questions about what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe. Some of the basic beliefs of the Church are:

• God is our Heavenly Father. He loves us and wants us to return to Him.
• Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is our Savior. He redeems us from death by providing the Resurrection. He saves us from sin as we repent.
• Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can return to live with God if we keep His commandments.
• The Holy Ghost helps us to recognize truth.
• The first principles and ordinances of the gospel are faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
• The Church of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth.
• The priesthood authority of God exists in His Church today, just as it did in the original Church.
• The Bible and the Book of Mormon are the word of God.
• God reveals His will to prophets today, just as He did anciently.
• Our life has a sacred purpose.
• Families can be together forever.
• Through serving others, we can experience joy and draw closer to God.

Political Correctness Run Amuck

More and more we see stories like this where people of all kinds are looking to be offended. I don't believe that one can be offended unless one is actually looking to be offended.

Neil Giuliano, the former mayor of Tempe, Arizona says he wants to meet with the actor to discuss, "the destructive impact of these kinds of anti-gay slurs." I'm sure that would be an enlightening conversation, not!

Political Correctness has killed free speech and all types of communication in this country. People are afraid to say anything because it might offend someone.

I'm reminded of a lady who worked for me who complained to our HR department that people were staring at her because she was in her full Muslim dress outfit. (I don't recall the correct name of it all) She freaked that someone was staring at her and she 'knew' that they didn't like her because she was Muslim and she wanted them punished for it. Talk about crazy!

It's time we get back to good ol' conversation around here and let's have some meaningful dialogue as opposed to this foolishness.

The Fairness Doctrine

Update: I spoke with a spokeswoman from Rep. Minchey's office today and she couldn't give me one example of where there isn't both sides being presented. All she wanted to say was the airwaves are for the public and there must be equal time. I gave her a couple of names of people I thought would have to change their shows if this went through (Couric, Williams, Gibson) as I feel they are extremely liberal. She said she felt they were conservative! I was shocked.

She couldn't tell me how this was going to be enforced except that it would be up to the FCC, probably based on complaints. This whole issue is laughable. Why is it that it's only Democrats who feel this way? Don't they get enough of their own on NBC (all her sister stations), ABC and CBS? Not to mention CNN! Aren't there more pressing issues back in Washington?

And still no examples of unfairness on the airwaves being presented so we know truly what they are referencing!

---------

This week, a couple of Democratic Congressmen and a Democratic Senator have indicated they will pursue having The Fairness Doctrine reintroduced as legislation. Thus far, not one of them has articulated where the current deficiency is regarding broadcasting to state such a claim.

One can presume they are complaining about talk radio which is dominated by conservative commentators. However, Air America supporters (George Soros et. al), the ultra liberal radio commentary hosted by Al Franken and the like, pumped in millions and millions of dollars and is now basically bankrupt and off the air in many cities that were broadcasting the show.

One can only wonder why they are failing and that is because their message doesn't resonate with listeners. Common sense says that if you have a product that no one wants then it will fail. I feel that is what the problem with their broadcast. What else can it be? They had the money and the airwaves to pump out their ideas but no one is interested.

I'm curious to see where they say the deficiency is and how they will actually monitor all of the airwaves to enforce their infringement of free speech. Reagan did the right thing in getting rid of an illegal law and it should not come up again as legislation. People have their choice of venue for receiving news; internet, network TV, radio, satellite etc. Switch the dial to whom you prefer and get your news. It is always interesting to see NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and the like ALL say that Fox News is right-wing biased. Why would ALL of them say the same thing if they are all fair and balanced. I submit they aren't and agree with the questions given to some to name a conservative anchor or host on any of those networks. Can't be done.

Why would Congress want to take away our 1st Amendment rights to free speech in the name of 'fairness'? You decide.

A Talk That Should Be Mandatory Reading

The Proper Role of Government
by The Honorable Ezra Taft Benson
Former Secretary of Agriculture to President Eisenhower
Published in 1968

Men in the public spotlight constantly are asked to express an opinion on a myriad of government proposals and projects. “What do you think of TVA?” “What is your opinion of Medicare?” How do you feel about Urban Renewal?” The list is endless. All too often, answers to these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government program in question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they, themselves, wish to be popular – especially if they seek public office.

GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE BASED UPON SOUND PRINCIPLES
Such an approach to vital political questions of the day can only lead to public confusion and legislative chaos. Decisions of this nature should be based upon and measured against certain basic principles regarding the proper role of government. If principles are correct, then they can be applied to any specific proposal with confidence.

“Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference to which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution.” (Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, P. 21-22)

Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just.

THE CORRECT ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

I should like to outline in clear, concise, and straight-forward terms the political principles to which I subscribe. These are the guidelines which determine, now and in the future, my attitudes and actions toward all domestic proposals and projects of government. These are the principles which, in my opinion, proclaim the proper role of government in the domestic affairs of the nation.

"(I) believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

"(I) believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life…"

"(I) believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, which protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience." (D&C 134: 1-2,5)

THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT

It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But, what are those right? And what is their source? Until these questions are answered there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them. Thomas Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution, explained that:

"Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another… It is impossible t discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man." (P.P.N.S., p. 134)

The great Thomas Jefferson asked:

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" (Works 8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)

Starting at the foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know are human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the Divine Plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (The Law, p.6)

THE REAL MEANING OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal recognition of God. The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny. If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations – a throwback to the Feudal System of the Dark Ages. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (P.P.N. S., p.519)

Since God created man with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he created. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the non-believer can appreciate the logic of this relationship.

THE SOURCE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER

Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the divine origin of rights, it is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: "WE THE PEOPLE… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

Of course, as James Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (The Federalist, No. 51)

NATURAL RIGHTS

In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:

"Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?" (The Law, p.6)

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three – defending themselves, their property and their liberty – in what properly was called the “Lawless West.” In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attach and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves – nothing more. Quoting again from Bastiat:

"If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -–its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right." (The Law, p. 6)

So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer “A” wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since pioneer “B” has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor’s good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer “B” wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.

If “A” has no proper power to take “B’s” property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that “B” give his extra horse to “A”, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:

“For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)

THE PROPER FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.

THE POWERS OF A PROPER GOVERNMENT

It also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective functions such as:

(1) The maintenance of courts where those charged with crimes may be tried and where disputes between citizens may be impartially settled.

(2) The establishment of a monetary system and a standard of weights and measures so that courts may render money judgments, taxing authorities may levy taxes, and citizens may have a uniform standard to use in their business dealings.

My attitude toward government is succinctly expressed by the following provision taken from the Alabama Constitution:

“That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.” (Art. 1, Sec. 35)

An important test I use in passing judgment upon an act of government is this: If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so? Since my conscience will never permit me to physically punish my fellow man unless he has done something evil, or unless he has failed to do something which I have a moral right to require of him to do, I will never knowingly authorize my agent, the government to do this on my behalf.

I realize that when I give my consent to the adoption of a law, I specifically instruct the police – the government – to take either the life, liberty, or property of anyone who disobeys that law. Furthermore, I tell them that if anyone resists the enforcement of the law, they are to use any means necessary – yes, even putting the lawbreaker to death or putting him in jail – to overcome such resistance. These are extreme measures but unless laws are enforced, anarchy results.

As John Locke explained many years ago:

“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, ‘a liberty for every man to do what he lists.’ For who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 57: P>P>N>S., p.101)

I believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government program. We should fully recognize that government is no plaything. As George Washington warned, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!” (The Red Carpet, p.142) It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Another standard I use in deterring what law is good and what is bad is the Constitution of the United States. I regard this inspired document as a solemn agreement between the citizens of this nation which every officer of government is under a sacred duty to obey. As Washington stated so clearly in his immortal Farewell Address:

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. – But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.” (P.P.N.S., p. 542)

I am especially mindful that the Constitution provides that the great bulk of the legitimate activities of government are to be carried out at the state or local level. This is the only way in which the principle of “self-government” can be made effective. As James Madison said before the adoption of the Constitution, “ (We) rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.” (Federalist, No.39; P.P.N.S., p. 128) Thomas Jefferson made this interesting observation: “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” (Works 8:3; P.P.N.S., p. 128)

THE VALUE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possible do the job should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom. Thomas Jefferson understood this principle very well and explained it this way:

“The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.” (Works 6:543; P.P.N.S., p. 125)

It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states.

THINGS THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT DO

A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

To be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient. If I could only FORCE the ignorant to provided for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth! But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far, but no farther?" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives? We shouldn’t forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland that "… though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people." (P.P.N.S., p.345) We should also remember, as Frederic Bastiat reminded us, that "Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in." (THE LAW, p. 30; P.P.N.S., p. 350)

THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN PROPER AND IMPROPER GOVERNMENT

As Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called "benefits" for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited power which is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit its favorite charities – all with the other fellow’s money, of course. (THE LAW, 1850, reprinted by the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-On-Hudson, N.Y.)

THE NATURE OF LEGAL PLUNDER

Listen to Bastiat’s explanation of this "legal plunder."

"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it – without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud – to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed!

"How is the legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime…" (THE LAW, p. 21, 26; P.P.N.S., p. 377)

As Bastiat observed, and as history has proven, each class or special interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone suffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal freedom. With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistribute function, then forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism. "It is impossible," Bastiat correctly observed, "to introduce into society… a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." (THE LAW, p. 12)

GOVERNMENT CANNOT CREATE WEALTH

Students of history know that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. James R. Evans, in his inspiring book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:

"Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy.

"Neither you nor I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man’s doorbell, hold out a hand and say, ‘Give me what you’ve earned even though I have not.’ We simply wouldn’t do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ In short, we would be held accountable for our actions."

The free creative energy of this choice nation "created more than 50% of all the world’s products and possessions in the short span of 160 years. The only imperfection in the system is the imperfection in man himself."

The last paragraph in this remarkable Evans book – which I commend to all – reads:

"No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours." (Charles Hallberg and Co., 116 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60610)

THE BASIC ERROR OF MARXISM

According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care – the same things that might be considered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.

THE REAL CAUSE OF AMERICAN PROSPERITY

Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America’s would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain. As Henry David Thoreau explained:

"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)

In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:

"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens – a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." (Works 8:3)

A FORMULA FOR PROSPERITY

The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula:

1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is not possible without incentive.
5. Of all forms of incentive – the freedom to attain a reward for one’s labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.
7. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.

AN EXAMPLE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISREGARDING THESE PRINCIPLES

We have before us currently a sad example of what happens to a nation which ignores these principles. Former FBI agent, Dan Smoot, succinctly pointed this out on his broadcast number 649, dated January 29, 1968, as follows:

"England was killed by an idea: the idea that the weak, indolent and profligate must be supported by the strong, industrious, and frugal – to the degree that tax-consumers will have a living standard comparable to that of taxpayers; the idea that government exists for the purpose of plundering those who work to give the product of their labor to those who do not work.

The economic and social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea will destroy any society which adopts it and clings to it as a basic principle – ANY society."

THE POWER OF TRUE LIBERTY FROM IMPROPER GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE

Nearly two hundred years ago, Adam Smith, the Englishman, who understood these principles very well, published his great book, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, which contains this statement:

"The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition, when suffered to exert itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a principle, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations; though the effect of these obstructions is always more or less either to encroach upon its freedom, or to diminish its security." (Vol. 2, Book 4, Chapt. 5, p. 126)

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE NEEDY?

On the surface this may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those less fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how affluent. "What about the lame, the sick and the destitute? Is an often-voice question. Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet, in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in. As Henry Grady Weaver wrote, in his excellent book, THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS:

"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own….THE HARM DONE BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, GANGSTERS, AND THIEVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL ‘DO-GOODERS’, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others – with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)

THE BETTER WAY

By comparison, America traditionally has followed Jefferson’s advice of relying on individual action and charity. The result is that the United States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the entire world or throughout all history. Even during the depression of the 1930’s, Americans ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH A "LITTLE" SOCIALISM?

In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn’t go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime.

THREE REASONS AMERICAN NEED NOT FALL FOR SOCIALIST DECEPTIONS

Three factors may make a difference. First, there is sufficient historical knowledge of the failures of socialism and of the past mistakes of previous civilizations. Secondly, there are modern means of rapid communications to transmit these lessons of history to a large literate population. And thirdly, there is a growing number of dedicated men and women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these concepts. The timely joining together of these three factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.

HOW CAN PRESENT SOCIALISTIC TRENDS BE REVERSED?

This brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the various welfare-state features of our government which have already fastened themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic? Isn’t drastic surgery already necessary, and can it be performed without endangering the patient? In answer, it is obvious that drastic measures ARE called for. No half-way or compromise actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to be saved, and it can be done without undue risk.

Obviously, not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social upheaval. To try to do so would be like finding oneself at the controls of a hijacked airplane and attempting to return it by simply cutting off the engines in flight. It must be flown back, lowered in altitude, gradually reduced in speed and brought in for a smooth landing. Translated into practical terms, this means that the first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their present level, making sure that no new ones are added. The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their term with absolutely no renewal. The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term. In my opinion, the bulk of the transition could be accomplished within a ten-year period and virtually completed within twenty years. Congress would serve as the initiator of this phase-out program, and the President would act as the executive in accordance with traditional constitutional procedures.

SUMMARY THUS FAR

As I summarize what I have attempted to cover, try to visualize the structural relationship between the six vital concepts that have made America the envy of the world. I have reference to the foundation of the Divine Origin of Rights; Limited Government; the pillars of economic Freedom and Personal Freedom, which result in Abundance; followed by Security and the Pursuit of Happiness.

America was built upon a firm foundation and created over many years from the bottom up. Other nations, impatient to acquire equal abundance, security and pursuit of happiness, rush headlong into that final phase of construction without building adequate foundations or supporting pillars. Their efforts are futile. And, even in our country, there are those who think that, because we now have the good things in life, we can afford to dispense with the foundations which have made them possible. They want to remove any recognition of God from governmental institutions, They want to expand the scope and reach of government which will undermine and erode our economic and personal freedoms. The abundance which is ours, the carefree existence which we have come to accept as a matter of course, CAN BE TOPPLED BY THESE FOOLISH EXPERIMENTERS AND POWER SEEKERS. By the grace of God, and with His help, we shall fence them off from the foundations of our liberty, and then begin our task of repair and construction.

As a conclusion to this discussion, I present a declaration of principles which have recently been prepared by a few American patriots, and to which I wholeheartedly subscribe.

FIFTEEN PRINCIPLES WHICH MAKE FOR GOOD AND PROPER GOVERNMENT

As an Independent American for constitutional government I declare that:

(1) I believe that no people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law.

(2) I believe that God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression.

(3) I believe that the Constitution of the United States was prepared and adopted by men acting under inspiration from Almighty God; that it is a solemn compact between the peoples of the States of this nation which all officers of government are under duty to obey; that the eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to or individual liberty will perish.

(4) I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:

(a) Punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;
(b) Protect the right and control of private property;
(c) Wage defensive war and provide for the nation’s defense;
(d) Compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his fair share of the burden of performing the above functions.

(5) I hold that the Constitution denies government the power to take from the individual either his life, liberty, or property except in accordance with moral law; that the same moral law which governs the actions of men when acting alone is also applicable when they act in concert with others; that no citizen or group of citizens has any right to direct their agent, the government to perform any act which would be evil or offensive to the conscience if that citizen were performing the act himself outside the framework of government.

(6) I am hereby resolved that under no circumstances shall the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights be infringed. In particular I am opposed to any attempt on the part of the Federal Government to deny the people their right to bear arms, to worship and pray when and where they choose, or to own and control private property.

(7) I consider ourselves at war with international Communism which is committed to the destruction of our government, our right of property, and our freedom; that it is treason as defined by the Constitution to give aid and comfort to this implacable enemy.

(8) I am unalterable opposed to Socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right of private property for government to own or operate the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise, or to regiment owners in the legitimate use of private property.

(9) I maintain that every person who enjoys the protection of his life, liberty, and property should bear his fair share of the cost of government in providing that protection; that the elementary principles of justice set forth in the Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform and that each person’s property or income be taxed at the same rate.

(10) I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a circulation medium convertible into such money without loss. I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of the Constitution for the Federal Government to make it a criminal offense to use gold or silver coin as legal tender or to use irredeemable paper money.

(11) I believe that each State is sovereign in performing those functions reserved to it by the Constitution and it is destructive of our federal system and the right of self-government guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to regulate or control the States in performing their functions or to engage in performing such functions itself.

(12) I consider it a violation of the Constitution for the Federal Government to levy taxes for the support of state or local government; that no State or local government can accept funds from the Federal and remain independent in performing its functions, nor can the citizens exercise their rights of self-government under such conditions.

(13) I deem it a violation of the right of private property guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to forcibly deprive the citizens of this nation of their property through taxation or otherwise, and make a gift thereof to foreign governments or their citizens.

(14) I believe that no treaty or agreement with other countries should deprive our citizens of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.

(15) I consider it a direct violation of the obligation imposed upon it by the Constitution for the Federal Government to dismantle or weaken our military establishment below that point required for the protection of the States against invasion, or to surrender or commit our men, arms, or money to the control of foreign ore world organizations of governments.

These things I believe to be the proper role of government.

We have strayed far afield. We must return to basic concepts and principles – to eternal verities. There is no other way. The storm signals are up. They are clear and ominous.

As Americans – citizens of the greatest nation under Heaven – we face difficult days. Never since the days of the Civil War – 100 years ago – has this choice nation faced such a crisis.

In closing I wish to refer you to the words of the patriot Thomas Paine, whose writings helped so much to stir into a flaming spirit the smoldering embers of patriotism during the days of the American Revolution:

"These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; ‘tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial and article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." (THE POLITICAL WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, p.55.)

I intend to keep fighting. My personal attitude is one of resolution – not resignation.

I have faith in the American people. I pray that we will never do anything that will jeopardize in any manner our priceless heritage. If we live and work so as to enjoy the approbation of a Divine Providence, we cannot fail. Without that help we cannot long endure.

ALL RIGHT-THINKING AMERICANS SHOULD NOW TAKE THEIR STAND

So I urge all Americans to put their courage to the test. Be firm in our conviction that our cause is just. Reaffirm our faith in all things for which true Americans have always stood.

I urge all Americans to arouse themselves and stay aroused. We must not make any further concessions to communism at home or abroad. We do not need to. We should oppose communism from our position of strength for we are not weak.

There is much work to be done. The time is short. Let us begin – in earnest – now and may God bless our efforts, I humbly pray.