A Daily Double

Our Government Rests Upon Religion

2012-02-09T10:52:00.000-08:00

“Our government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberality and for the rights of mankind. Unless the people believe in these principles they cannot believe in our government. There are only two main theories of government in the world. One rests on righteousness and the other on force. One appeals to reason, the other appeals to the sword. One is exemplified in a republic, the other is represented by a despotism.

"The government of a country never gets ahead of the religion of a country. There is no way by which we can substitute the authority of law for the virtue of men. Of course we can help to restrain the vicious and furnish a fair degree of security and protection by legislation and police control, but the real reform which society in these days is seeking will come as a result of religious convictions, or they will not come at all. Peace, justice, charity- these cannot be legislated into being. They are the result of Divine Grace.”
(President Calvin Coolidge, 30 president of the United States)

Blast From the Past

2012-02-06T10:00:00.000-08:00

"We should pay no attention to the recommendations of men who call the Constitution an eighteenth-century agrarian document—who apologize for capitalism and free enterprise. We should refuse to follow their siren song of concentrating, increasingly, the powers of government in the Chief Executive, of delegating American sovereign authority to non-American institutions in the United Nations, and pretending that it will bring peace to the world by turning our armed forces over to a U.N. world-wide police force."
(Ezra Taft Benson, Title of Liberty pg. 176; from an address given at Los Angeles, CA, 11 Dec 1961)

Warnings from J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

2012-01-19T11:17:00.000-08:00

"Is there any one so naive as to think that things will right themselves without a fight? There has been no more fight in us than there is a bunch of sheep, and we have been much like sheep. Freedom was never brought to people on a silver platter, nor maintained with whisk brooms and lavender sprays. And do not think that the usurpations, intimidations, and impositions are being done to us through inadvertence or mistake; The whole course is deliberately planned and carried out; its purpose is to destroy the Constitution and our constitutional government; then to bring chaos, out of which the new Statism with its slavery is to arise..." [Church News PPNS pg. 327]

"This gigantic worldwide struggle more and more takes on the form of war to the death. We shall do well and wisely so to face and so to enter it. And we must all take part. Indeed, we all are taking part in that struggle, whether we will or not. Upon its final issue, liberty lives or dies.
"This earth-wide conflict has taken the form of seizing without compensation from the man who has, and giving to the man who has not; of taking from the worker the fruits of his work, and giving to the idler who does not work. It has from its very nature become an economic, uncompensated leveling downward, not upwards of the whole mass. That this result may in one country be reached by confiscatory taxation, and in another by direct seizure, is a mere matter of method. The results is the same. In some countries outright seizure and confiscation are already openly and shamelessly practiced. All is done in the name of the state, as if it were deity, as if the state, not God gives all. Even into the field of family relationship, which, next to man's relationship to God, is the most precious and dearest of all relationships, this modern State is thrusting its polluting hand. In some lands this new State is robbing the parents of custody of their children, it is forbidding the parents to teach and admonish the children in the ways of righteous living; it is teaching the children that officers of State, not God, shall be looked to for a guide as to standards of life! Into the field of religion, the holy of holies of the soul of man, this modern world State also enters, to dethrone God and exalt the State into God's place. This is the archest reason of them all! For man robbed of God becomes a brute. This sin must be felt, not told, for words cannot measure the height and breadth of this iniquity; nor can human mind encompass the punishment of those who shall commit this sin." [1938 Vital Speeches]

"God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they shall be. Under His plan the only allegiance we owe as citizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up.�This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom.
"I wish to say with all the earnestness I possess that when you see any curtailment of these liberties I have named, when you see government invading any of these realms of freedom which we have under our Constitution, you will know that they are putting shackles on your liberty, and that tyranny is creeping upon you, no matter who curtails these liberties or who invades these realms, and no matter what the reason and excuse therefore may be.
"I say to you that the price of liberty is and always has been blood, human blood, and if our liberties are lost, we shall never regain them except at the price of blood. They must not be lost.� [The Improvement Era, 43, [July 1940] 444.]

Individual Agency

2012-01-03T07:19:00.000-08:00

"With regard to the rights of the human family, I wish to say that God has given unto all of his children . . . individual agency. This agency has always been the heritage of man under the rule and government of God. He possessed it in the heaven of heavens before the world was, and the Lord maintained and defended it there against the aggression of Lucifer and those that took sides with him, to the overthrow of Lucifer and on-third part of the heavenly hosts. By virtue of this agency you and I and all mankind are made responsible beings, responsible for the course we pursue, the lives we live, the deeds we do in the body" (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p. 8-9).

Memo To Occupy Protesters

2011-12-01T10:41:00.000-08:00

The following article is by Daniel Hannan who is a journalist for the British paper, The Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100119741/memo-to-the-occupy-protesters-here-are-ten-things-we-evil-capitalists-really-think/

Chatting to some Occupy protesters this morning, I was struck by how wide of the mark were the beliefs they attributed to me as a Right-winger. In the interests of deeper understanding, here are ten things which – trust me – most of the Tory scum I hang around with think. Obviously, I don’t expect to turn my Leftie readers in a single post; still, they might get a clearer idea of what we actually believe.

1. Free-marketeers resent the bank bailouts. This might seem obvious: we are, after all, opposed to state subsidies and nationalisations. Yet it often surprises commentators, who mistake our support for open competition and free trade for a belief in plutocracy. There is a world of difference between being pro-market and being pro-business. Sometimes, the two positions happen to coincide; often they don’t.

2. What has happened since 2008 is not capitalism. In a capitalist system, bad banks would have been allowed to fail, their profitable operations bought by more efficient competitors. Shareholders, bondholders and some depositors would have lost money, but taxpayers would not have contributed a penny (see here).

3. If you want the rich to pay more, create a flatter and simpler tax system. This is partly a question of closing loopholes (mansions put in company names to avoid stamp duty, capital gains tax exemption for non-doms etc). Mainly, though, it is a question of bringing the tax rate down to a level where evasion becomes pointless. As Art Laffer keeps telling anyone who’ll listen, it works every time. Between 1980 and 2007, the US cut taxes at all income levels. Result? The top one per cent went from paying 19.5 per cent of all taxes to 40 per cent. In Britain, since the top rate of income tax was lowered to 40 per cent in 1988, the share of income tax collected from the wealthiest percentile has risen from 14 to 27 per cent.

4. Those of us who believe in small government are not motivated by the desire to make the rich richer. We’re really not. We are, in most cases, nowhere near having to pay top rate tax ourselves; our most eloquent champions over the years have been modestly-paid academics. We believe that economic freedom will enrich the country as a whole. Yes, the wealthy might become wealthier still, but we don't see that as an argument against raising living standards for the majority.

5. We are not against equality. We generally recognise the benefits in Scandinavian-style homogeneity: crime tends to be lower, people are less stressed etc. Our objection is not that egalitarianism is undesirable in itself, but that the policies required to enforce in involve a disproportionate loss of liberty and prosperity.

6. Nor, by the way, does state intervention seem to be an effective way to promote equality. On the most elemental indicators – height, calorie intake, infant mortality, literacy, longevity – Britain has been becoming a steadily more equal society since the calamity of 1066. It’s true that, around half a century ago, this approximation halted and, on some measures, went into reverse. There are competing theories as to why, but one thing is undeniable: the recent widening of the wealth gap has taken place at a time when the state controls a far greater share of national wealth than ever before.

7. Let’s tackle the idea that being on the Left means being on the side of ordinary people, while being on the Right means defending privileged elites. It’s hard to think of a single tax, or a single regulation, that doesn’t end up privileging some vested interest at the expense of the general population. The reason governments keep growing is because of what economists call ‘dispersed costs and concentrated gains’: people are generally more aware the benefits they receive than of the taxes they pay.

8. Capitalism, with all its imperfections, is the fairest scheme yet tried. In a system based on property rights and free contract, people succeed by providing an honest service to others. Bill Gates became rich by enriching hundreds of millions of us: I am typing these words using one of his programmes. He gained from the exchange (adding fractionally to his net worth), and so did I (adding to my convenience). In a state-run system, by contrast, third parties get to hand out the goodies.

9. Talking of fairness, let’s remember that the word doesn’t belong to any faction. How about parity between public and private sector pay? How about being fair to our children, whom we have freighted with a debt unprecedented in peacetime? How about being fair to the boy who leaves school at 16 and starts paying taxes to subsidise the one who goes to university? How about being fair to the unemployed, whom firms cannot afford to hire because of the social protection enjoyed by existing employees?

10. Let’s not forget ethics, either. There is virtue in deciding to do the right thing, but there is no virtue in being compelled. Choosing to give your money to charity is meritorious; paying tax is morally neutral (see here). Evidence suggests that, as taxes rise, and the state squeezes out civic society, people give less to good causes.

Prepare for the Battles to Come

2011-11-17T11:56:00.000-08:00

Ezra Taft Benson said:

"The Founding Fathers understood the principle that “righteousness exalteth a nation” (Prov 14:34), and helped to bring about one of the greatest systems ever used to govern men. But unless we continue to seek righteousness and preserve the liberties entrusted to us, we shall lose the blessings of heaven. Thomas Jefferson said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” The price of freedom is also to live in accordance with the commandments of God. The early Founding Fathers thanked the Lord for His intervention in their behalf. They saw His hand in their victories in battle and believed strongly that He watched over them.

"The battles are not over yet, and there will yet be times when this great nation will need the overshadowing help of Deity. Will we as a nation be worthy to call upon Him for help?"

(Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 601; from an address given at the Provo Freedom Festival, Provo, UT, 29 Jun 1986)

Be Prepared

2011-11-08T07:37:00.000-08:00

Do you have extra food stored in your home in the event of a job loss or natural disaster? Are you prepared in case of crop failures or inflation? Take a look at the food and emergency supplies that Shelf Reliance offers. Visit my site at:

http://ediewhitehead.shelfreliance.com/EdieWhitehead

Governments are the Servants...

2011-11-02T09:26:00.000-07:00

Governments are the servants, not the masters of the people. All who love the Constitution of the United States can vow with Thomas Jefferson, who, when he was president, said,

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

He later said:

To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must take our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements.

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the disposition of public money. We are endeavoring to reduce the government to the practice of rigid economy to avoid burdening the people and arming the magistrate with a patronage of money which might be used to corrupt the principles of our government. . . .

In conclusion, I repeat that no greater immediate responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this Republic and of neighboring Republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.

Let us, by exercising our privileges under the Constitution:

(1) Preserve our right to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience,

(2) Preserve the right to work when and where we choose. . . .

(3) Feel free to plan and to reap without the handicap of bureaucratic interference.

(4) Devote our time, means, and life if necessary, to hold inviolate those laws which will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

( Source: David O. McKay “Free Agency… A Divine Gift” 367, 378 )

Food Storage - Edie's New Venture

2011-10-21T12:11:00.000-07:00

I am now a consultant for Shelf Reliance/Thrive food storage and emergency products. Please visit my online store at http://www.shelfreliance.com/ediewhitehead

The Constitution: An Inspired Document

2011-10-12T10:28:00.000-07:00

"If we would make the world better, let us foster a keener appreciation of the freedom and liberty guaranteed by the government of the United States as framed by the founders of this nation. Here again self-proclaimed progressives cry that such old-time adherence is out of date. But there are some fundamental principles of this republic which, like eternal truths, never get out of date, and which are applicable at all times to liberty-loving peoples. Such are the underlying principles of the Constitution, a document framed by patriotic, freedom-loving men, who Latter-day Saints declare were inspired by the Lord" (David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, p. 319).

Called to Serve

2011-09-09T08:11:00.000-07:00

West African LDS missionaries in Ghana sing "Called to Serve".

Freedom to Worship

2011-08-30T10:52:00.000-07:00

"I have heard Joseph Smith say that if he were emperor of the whole world, holding the destinies of all men in his hands, he would defend the religious rights of every man, whether his religion was right or wrong. And especially ought this to be the case in this American nation, the constitution of which guarantees to all people the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. This is the broad platform upon which our government has been founded. I have looked upon the Constitution of the United States as one of the best instruments ever devised by man for the government of the inhabitants of the earth."
(Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses 24:237)

California Dreamin', Part Three

2011-08-17T12:10:00.000-07:00

Our final stop on our southern California trip was at President Nixon's library. His libary is in Yorba Linda, about an hour-and-a-half from President Reagan's library in Simi Valley. President Nixon's library actually sits on his family's land, in the place where citrus orchards had once been. It is located right next to President Nixon's family home. The house hasn't been moved; it's in the same place it was when Nixon was born there.

President Nixon and his wife, Pat, are both buried on the site of the Nixon Presidential Library.

The presidential helicopter that flew President Nixon and his family away from the White House on the day of his resignation is also located on the property. We were able to walk through it. It had the lovely 1970's decor of gold and avocado green upholstery.

These pictures are inside the Nixon family home. The kitchen is tiny. A person could stand in one place and reach almost everything in the room. The main room has the piano, chairs, and the dining table in the corner. There were two bedrooms on the main floor, but President Nixon's dad split one of the rooms in half and made it into a bathroom when indoor plumbing became a common feature. The Nixon boys slept on beds in the attic. The picture of the bed is the actual bed and room where President Nixon was born.

Bathroom is through the door

Piece of Berlin Wall To scale replice of White House East Room

California Dreamin', Part Two

2011-08-08T10:53:00.000-07:00

Last summer we went to the Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri. We were pleasantly surprised at how interesting it was -- and that's from two people who agreed with very little of Truman's philosophies.

Library is really a misnomer for a presidential library. They are really museums and contain history about the president, his family, and issues of the world at that time. Anyone who is interested in history would love to walk through a presidential library. But plan for at least two hours; we have yet to get through one in less than two hours.

Touring all the presidential libraries is our new interest. Since we were planning a trip to Solvang this summer, taking the time to visit the Reagan and Nixon libraries seemed like a must.

We went to the Reagan library first. When we went to the Nixon library, we mentioned to one of our guides that we had visited the Reagan library prior to the Nixon libary. He had library envy as he expressed to us that Reagan's library had a lot of space to spread out. He's right; Reagan's library had a lot more space than Nixon's library.

Reliving the years leading up to Reagan's election while walking through the library was like looking in a mirror of where our country is currently. We were surprised at how many people were at the Reagan library besides us. Maybe they, like us, all long for the days of Reagan backbone and sanity.

Below are some pictures we took at Reagan's library:

President & Mrs. Reagan greet visitors / Reagan's saddles

President Reagan's "tear down this wall" suit / President & Mrs. Reagan's inaugural clothes

Air Force One. We were able to tour the inside.

The view from the Reagan Library

Replica of Reagan's Oval Office built to scale.

Reagan and Gorbachev

"We have one beacon to guide us that Ronald Reagan never had. We have his example. Let us give thanks today for a life that achieved so much for all of God's children."

-Margaret Thatcher-

California Dreamin', part one

2011-08-05T09:55:00.000-07:00

This year for our summer vacation we decided to take a trip to southern California. Edie had visited Solvang, California, several years ago and decided that it might be a place we'd like to see. Solvang is a small Dutch community that attracts lots of tourists and offers a variety of choices in Dutch shopping and pastries - two of our favorite things.

We stayed at a hotel in Goleta, California (by Santa Barbara), and drove the thirty minutes to Solvang. The drive was beautiful as we drove on the coast of the Pacific Ocean. Below are some pictures we took with a cell phone:

We were so busy shopping that we forgot to take pictures of Solvang, but here's the link to a visitor's site. http://cityofsolvang.com/

Traffic in southern California is worse than a nightmare. At least you can wake up from a nightmare. It seems like there is never a good time of day, or a good day of the week, to drive the L.A. freeways. It's always bumper to bumper with periods of completely stopping and sitting on the freeway.

We've driven across country and back. We've driven through the rush hour downtown traffic of Philadelphia. We've driven the narrow and hectic streets of Washington, D.C. None of it compares to the absolute chaos of the L.A. freeway. If we ever return to Solvang, we're going through Bakersfield and sneaking in the back way. Future trips to southern California will be limited to Disneyland.

We asked one of the Solvang store owners how long he had lived there. He said that he had been there for about 28 years. He had lived in L.A. prior to moving to Solvang, but one day it took him 5 -1/2 hours in L.A. traffic to get home from work. And thus started his quest to leave L.A. It took three years, but he got out.

Freedom Requires Work

2011-07-20T13:38:00.000-07:00

"The only way we can keep our freedom is to work at it. Not some of us. All of us. Not some of the time, but all of the time.

"So if you value your citizenship and you want to keep it for yourself and your children and their children, give it your faith, your belief, and give it your active support in civic affairs."

(Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 405; from an address given at the Rotary Club, Salt Lake City, UT, 8 Jun 1976)

George Soros Strikes Again

2011-06-29T09:56:00.000-07:00

Billionaire George Soros is continuing his efforts to fundamentally change America -- and it's not a good change.

"A small tax-exempt political group with ties to wealthy liberals like billionaire financier George Soros has quietly helped elect 11 reform-minded progressive Democrats as secretaries of state to oversee the election process in battleground states and keep Republican 'political operatives from deciding who can vote and how those votes are counted.'

"Known as the Secretary of State Project (SOSP), the organization was formed by liberal activists in 2006 to put Democrats in charge of state election offices, where key decisions often are made in close races on which ballots are counted and which are not.

"The group’s website said it wants to stop Republicans from “manipulating” election results.
'Any serious commitment to wresting control of the country from the Republican Party must include removing their political operatives from deciding who can vote and whose votes will count,' the group said on its website, accusing some Republican secretaries of state of making 'partisan decisions.'

"SOSP has sought donations by describing the contributions as a “modest political investment” to elect “clean candidates” to the secretary of state posts.

Read the full article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/23/section-527-works-to-seat-liberals-as-election-ove/

Our Greatest Responsibility is to Protect Freedom

2011-06-28T10:56:00.000-07:00

"No greater immediate responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this Republic and of neighboring Republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.

"Let us, by exercising our privileges under the Constitution (1) Preserve our right to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience, (2) Preserve the right to work when and where we choose. No free man should be compelled to pay tribute in order to realize this God-given privilege. (3) Feel free to plan and to reap without the handicap of bureaucratic interference. (4) Devote our time, means, and life if necessary, to hold inviolate those laws which will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control [p. 158] of property,(35) and the protection of life." (David O. McKay, CR-4/50:37)

Civic Responsibility

2011-06-26T16:24:00.000-07:00

"Improve your community by active participation and service. Remember in your civic responsibility that 'the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' (Edmund Burke)... Do something meaningful in defense of your God-given freedom and liberty" (Ezra Taft Benson, in Conference Report, April 1988, 58).

The Law of the Harvest

2011-06-21T10:20:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from The Law of the Harvest: As a Man Sows, So Shall He Reap. Elder Howard W. Hunter. BYU Devotional. March 8, 1966.

"Many consider Ralph Waldo Emerson one of the wisest Americans. He discovered in his own way the truth that all blessings are predicated on obedience to both natural and spiritual law. His expression is very profound:

"…Every secret is told, every crime is punished, every virtue rewarded, every wrong redressed, in silence and certainty…Every act rewards itself, or in other words integrates itself, in a twofold manner, first in the thing, or in real nature; and secondly in the circumstance, or in apparent nature. Man calls the circumstance, the retribution. The casual retribution is in the thing and is seen by the soul. The retribution in the circumstance is seen by the understanding; it is inseparable from the thing, but is often spread over a long time and so does not become distinct until after many years. The specific stripes may follow late after the offence, but they follow because they accompany it…."

"What is true with an individual is also true with a nation. You can absolutely rely on this – a nation cannot violate basic principles with impunity, that is, without paying the awful price, anymore than an individual can violate basic principles with impunity.

"We hear a lot of economic and political arguments going on around the country today. We have for a long time. Words like 'socialism,' 'free enterprise,' 'the welfare state,' 'states rights,' 'federal control,' 'human rights,' 'property rights,' 'communism,' are bantered around widely.

"From my own experience in business and as a lawyer and church worker, and from my firsthand observations in this country and other countries of the world, there appears to me to be a trend to shift responsibility for life and its processes from the individual to the state. In this shift there is a basic violation of the Law of the Harvest, or the law of justice. The attitude of 'something for nothing' is encouraged. The government is often looked to as the source of wealth. There is the feeling that the government should step in and take care of one’s needs, one’s emergencies, and one’s future.

"The right to own and control private property is not only a human right; it is a divine right. We will largely be judged, if I understand the Savior’s teachings correctly (see Matthew 25), by how we use our property voluntarily for the blessings and benefit of our Father’s other children. ...this right of free agency is our most precious heritage. It is our greatest gift in this world and is to be valued even more than life itself.

"If you deprive a man of his right to fail in the righteous use of his property, you also deprive him of his right to succeed. If you remove from a man his right to “go to hell,” you likewise remove his free agency to go to heaven. Satan’s entire philosphy is based on a “something for nothing” philosophy: salvation without effort – a free gift. This counterfeit doctrine was rejected by God our Father. Our Elder Brother, Jesus Christ, accepted our Father’s plan and agreed to pay the infinite price to become our Savior and Redeemer and to show us the way back to the Father. The way is often the hard way. It is the Law of the Harvest. It is the same basic law in the spiritual realm which the farmer must obey in the physical realm. He plants in the spring and cultivates, waters, weeds, and nourishes the ground and its new life and then harvests in the fall.

"Under a free enterprise economy, little more than 6 percent of the population has produced nearly half of the world’s goods. We can today best wage a war on poverty by working on the roots of prosperity, not by sapping their vital strength. To sap the self-reliant spirit of enterprising independent souls in the development of a welfare state can bring only 'poverty equally divided.' When the responsibility for their own welfare is completely shifted from the shoulders of individuals and families to the state, a lethal blow is struck at both the roots of our prosperity and our moral growth.

"What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms.

"Let me illustrate: If I, as an employer, in my policies and practices exploit my employees, I will either lose them and my business, or my employees will gather together and threaten to strike me. They will strive to exercise an influence on the legislative process so that laws will be enacted dictating fair employment policies and practices, thus limiting my freedom to determine these things for myself.

"If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through 'a democratic process' he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have nots.' Both have lost their freedom. Those who 'have,' lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who 'have not' lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got 'something for nothing,' and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.

"Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost ."

"A thief takes something and gives nothing. He thinks he is free but sooner or later his freedom vanishes into walls and bars. Likewise, a person becomes a thief of his own soul by deceiving himself that he can live unrighteously, immorally, that he can cheat, lie, and take advantage of his neighbor; but all the while he is imprisoning himself behind bars and walls of his own making. 'Be not deceived; God is not mocked.'” (Galatians 6:7.)

"The only way we can keep our freedom is through our personal righteousness – by handling that freedom responsibly. We are our brother’s keeper. We must be concerned for the social problems of today. We must take that responsibility upon ourselves according to the gospel plan but not according to the socialistic plan.

"You know that it is vain and foolish for a doctor to criticize the symptoms of a disease and refuse to work upon the roots. So, also, it is superficial to only criticize socialism and the welfare state and the many other evil “isms” growing up among us unless we work upon the roots. It is only in the changing of a man’s heart – a second birth – the changing of an individual, that the root strength comes to change a people or a nation.

"God will preserve our country and protect it from all enemies, within and without, if we will worship the God of this land, who is Jesus Christ. The real issue is righteousness."

Quote of the Day

2011-06-10T10:26:00.000-07:00

"We live in a government raised up by the God of heaven. We have a Constitution that was given by inspiration from God to man. I believe it is the best human form of government that was ever given to the human family. Now, I say if our rulers and governors become corrupt and attempt to trample those principles under their feet; though the nation itself might go to pieces, yet it is beyond the power of man to destroy the principles of the Constitution. They may destroy one another, yet the principles contained in that instrument will live, and the God of heaven will maintain them until Jesus Christ comes . . . to reign on the earth a thousand years"
(The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p. 187).

7 Responsibilities You Have As An American

2011-06-08T08:16:00.000-07:00

The following article was written by John Hawkins and posted today, June 8, 2011, on Townhall.com.

7 Responsibilities You Have As An American

You hear a lot about "rights" in America. You have a right to an attorney. You have a right to remain silent. You have a right to free speech, a right to "keep and bear arms," a right to "due process," and a right to have "equal protection under the law."

Cruel and unusual punishment? Unreasonable search and seizure? Being tried twice for the same crime? Those would be violations of your rights. We're told that we have a right to privacy, a right to have an education, and a right to worship as we choose.

We hear about individual rights, civil rights, human rights, and constitutional rights. Stop somebody from doing something he wants to do and as likely as not, he'll tell you, "I have a right to do that and you have no right to stop me. After all, it's a free country and I have my rights!"

All that's well and good, but know what you don't hear a lot about anymore?

Responsibilities.

Responsibilities are the flip side of rights. In fact, the only reason we have rights at all is because there are people who fulfill their responsibilities. Yet, if you ask people what their responsibilities as Americans are, you'll usually get vacant expressions and maybe a mumbled statement about jury duty or paying taxes.

With that in mind, here are a few basic responsibilities that you, I, and all of us have as Americans.

1) It's your responsibility to pay your own way. Nobody owes you a living and that includes other taxpayers. You have a responsibility to pay your own bills and not be a leech. That means, over the course of your lifetime, paying as much in taxes as you take out in services and direct payments from the government. If, by some horrible set of circumstances you feel compelled to go on the dole, you should at least be ashamed to take hand-outs from your fellow citizens.

2) It's your responsibility to take care of your children. If you have kids, you have a duty to take care of them. That means paying money to feed, clothe, and house them. It means being a part of their life and doing your best to raise them, teach them right from wrong, and help them have a better life than you've had. This seems to be so simple that it's practically instinctive to most people, but apparently, a lot of people don't get it.

3) It's your responsibility to look out for future generations of Americans. Whether you think of America as "the land of opportunity, "a shining city on a hill," "the land of the free and the home of the brave," or the "last, best hope of mankind," we all have a duty to preserve what's great about this nation so that future generations of Americans can experience it just as we have. How careless, how irresponsible, how unforgivable it would be if our children and our children's children have to grow up in an America that is no longer extraordinary.

4) You have a responsibility to be an informed voter. In recent years there has been a big push to get all Americans to vote. That's sort of like giving everyone a gun and encouraging them to immediately squeeze off a few rounds. If they don't know anything about what they're doing, they're as likely to hurt themselves or someone else as they are to do good. The same goes for voting. Not everyone has to be a political junky, but it would be nice if people took the time to become well-informed about the ins-and-outs of the basic political issues we have to deal with in this country instead of voting on who has the best attack ads. Being an informed voter is a responsibility. Being an uninformed voter is flipping a coin – heads, America wins and tails, it loses.

5) You have a responsibility to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is the "set of rules" that we go by as a people and most of the "rights" are guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet, the Constitution is under daily attack in this country by activists and politicians who feel the ends justify the means along with judges who claim to believe in a "living Constitution," which is functionally no different than not having a Constitution at all. You may not win every fight to adhere to the Constitution, but it's a battle worth fighting because no document does more to safeguard the rights of all Americans.

6) You have a responsibility to put America first. The UN, other nations, and "the world" don't really care very much whether you live or die. Not that Americans in Boston are going to shed tears if an American in LA passes on either, but we at least have a certain small, but meaningful level of kinship with each other by virtue of being Americans.

9/11 was a good example of that. Most other nations around the world said a few kind words for us and seemed to have a few days to a few weeks’ worth of goodwill towards us over it. But nearly 10 years later, it was other Americans who got revenge for the fallen by putting a bullet in Bin Laden's forehead. You should always look out for your own country because it's the biggest group of people on the planet who might actually care whether you live or die.

7) You have a responsibility to be a good person. As Samuel Adams noted way back in 1779,

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

Honesty, honor, godliness, industry, respect for the law, morality, and truthfulness are the wheels on which our entire republic rides. If the American people are no damn good, then no matter how well the Constitution is written, how well we're governed, or how much good fortune comes our way, we are doomed as a nation.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/06/07/7_responsibilities_you_have_as_an_american/page/full/

Founding Fathers' Quotables

2011-06-07T09:46:00.000-07:00

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
-- Tom Paine, 1776

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Tom Paine

"Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." -- Patrick Henry

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Ben Franklin, 1766

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." -- Samuel Adams, 1779

Americans are Destroying America

2011-05-18T14:12:00.000-07:00

(Ezra Taft Benson. General Conference Talk – April 1968. Americans are destroying America.)

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/ezra-taft-benson/americans-are-destroying-america/

We live in a time of crisis Never since the period of the Civil War has this nation faced such critical days. Americans are destroying America.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–the Mormon Church–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.”

–”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.”

–”that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people. . . .”

–”that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while 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. . . .” (D&C 134:1–3, 5.)

No people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law. God has endowed, men with certain inalienable rights, and no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these. The function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and anything more or less than this is usurpation and oppression.

Breakdown of law and order

The Constitution of the United States was prepared and adopted by courageous men acting under inspiration from the Almighty. It is a solemn contract between the peoples of the states of this nation that all officers of government are under duty to obey. The eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to or individual liberty will perish. It is the responsibility of government to punish crime and provide for the administration of justice and to protect the right and control of property.

But today these basic principles and concepts are being flaunted, disregarded, and challenged, even by men in high places. Through the exercise of political expediency, the government is condoning the breakdown of law and order.

Qualification for civil liberty

Edmund Burke, the great English statesman, explained that “men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites,–in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity,–in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,–in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke Vol. 4, pp. 51-52.)

Greatest threat

I do not believe the greatest threat to our future is from bombs or guided missiles. I do not think our civilization will die that way. I think it will die when we no longer care, when the spiritual forces that make us wish to be right and noble die in the hearts of men, when we disregard the importance of law and order.

If American freedom is lost, if America is destroyed, if our blood-bought freedom is surrendered, it will be because of Americans. What’s more, it will probably not be only the work of subversive and criminal Americans. The Benedict Arnolds will not be the only ones to forfeit our freedom.
“At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected?” asked Abraham Lincoln, and he answered, “If it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher; as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.” (Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1837.)

If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers–normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free–Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.

Erosion of national morality

Great nations are never conquered from outside unless they are rotten inside. Our greatest national problem today is erosion, not the erosion of the soil, but erosion of the national morality–erosion of traditional enforcement of law and order.

Theodore Roosevelt said: “The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, and love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.” (Quoted in The Red Carpet, p. 315.)

In this blessed land we have exalted security, comfort, and ease above freedom. If we dwelled at length on the many things that are disturbing in the life of America today, we might well become discouraged. I mention only a few of the reported startling evidences of our national illness, our moral erosion.

–There is a decline of U.S. morals and moral fiber, a turning to pleasure and away from hard work and high standards of the past.
–There is a growing worry in our universities over cheating in examinations.
–Nationwide juvenile delinquencies show an eight-fold increase since 1950.
–There is a 500-million dollar smut industry in this country causing youngsters to wrestle with standards of value.
–America is the biggest market for narcotics.
–Although we consider ourselves a people who believe in law and order, we have seen much evidence of the passion of the mob.
–Crime in the United States is up 88 percent in seven years, rising nearly nine times faster than population, up 16 percent per year, according to the FBI. Crime costs some $20 billion a year, and less than 21 percent of reported crimes result in arrests and less than one-third of those in convictions.
–In the midst of a cold war and preparation for a possible shooting war of survival, we have faced 651 strikes at missile bases in six years.
–Inflation has struck a serious blow to the value of the American dollar.
–We continue to move in the direction of more federal intervention, more concentration of power, more spending, more taxing, more paternalism, more state-ism.

Gradual encroachments

The facts are clear. Our problem centers in Washington, D.C. And this applies to the administration of both political parties. In the words of James Madison, Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” (Elliot’s Debates, Vol. 3, p. 87.)

If America is to withstand these influences and trends, there must be a renewal of the spirit of our forefathers, an appreciation of the American way of life, a strengthening of muscle and sinew and the character of the nation. America needs guts as well as guns. National character is the core of national defense.

Appreciation for American system

Could many of our ills today have resulted from our failure to train a strong citizenry from the only source we have–the boys and girls of each community? Have they grown up to believe in politics without principle, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without effort, wealth without work, business without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice?

In recent months a nationwide survey of high school and college students has been conducted. The U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce reveals that 41 percent believe that freedom of the press should be canceled; 53 percent believe in government ownership of banks, railroads, and steel companies; 62 percent said that the government bad the responsibility to provide jobs; 62 percent thought a worker should not produce all that he can; 61 percent rejected the profit incentive as necessary to the survival of free enterprise; 84 percent denied that patriotism is vital and plays an important part in our lives. (Bookmaker News, Vol. 10, Nov. 1, 1965.)

Letters that come to my desk from worried parents deeply concerned by what is being taught to their children in the schools are shocking, to say the least.

We can never survive unless our young people understand and appreciate our American system, which has given more of the good things of life than any other system in the world–unless they have a dedication that exceeds the dedication of the enemy. Character must become important in this country again. The old essentials of honesty, self-respect, loyalty, and support for law and order must be taught the younger generation.

Right to be uncommon

I appeal to people everywhere, young and old, to heed these words of Dean Alfange:
“I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek opportunity to develop whatever talents God gave me–not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the bend fit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say–’This, with God’s help, I have done.’ All this is what it means to be an American”

Those of us conscious of the seriousness of the situation must act, and act now. It has been said that it takes something spectacular to get folks excited, like a burning house. Nobody notices one that is simply decaying. But in America today we not only have decaying but burning before our very eyes.

Heritage threatened

Our priceless heritage is threatened today as never before in our lifetime: from without by the forces of Godless Communism, and at home by our complacency and by the insidious forces of the Socialist-Communist conspiracy, with the help of those who would abandon the ancient landmarks set by our fathers and take us down the road to destruction. It was Alexander Hamilton who warned that “nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves.” (Alexander Hamilton and the Founding of the Nation, p. 462.)

Serious and concerned citizens everywhere are asking, “Can we cope with these threatening realities?” Yes, we can; if we would allow the local police to do their job, they could handle the rioting and looting. Yes, we can, if we have the courage and wisdom to return to basic concepts, to recall the spirit of the founding fathers and accept wholeheartedly these words of Thomas Paine, whose writings helped so much to stir people to action during the days of the American Revolution when he said:

“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 an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.” (The Political Words of Thomas Paine, p. 55.)

The way of safety

As American citizens who love freedom, we must return to a respect for national morality–respect for law and order. There is no other way of safety for us and our posterity. The hour is late; the time is short. We must begin now, in earnest, and invite God’s blessings on our efforts.
The United States should be a bastion of real freedom. We should not support the world’s greatest evil, the Godless, Socialist-Communist conspiracy that seeks to destroy all we hold dear as a great Christian nation and to promote insidiously the breakdown of law and order and the erosion of our morality.

With God’s help we must return to those basic concepts, those eternal verities, the rule of law and order upon which this nation was established. With an aroused citizenry and the help of Almighty God it can be accomplished.

The Wisdom of Plato

2011-05-05T09:01:00.000-07:00

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

The Courage Of The Minute Men

2011-04-19T13:38:00.000-07:00

April 14, 2011 by Bob Livingston

In the early morning hours of April 19, 1775, about 700 British regular troops began a march toward Concord. Their goal: Round up weapons and gunpowder stored there by rebel colonists and arrest any rebel leaders they find, particularly John Hancock and Samuel Adams.

Around 1 a.m. Paul Revere arrived and informed Lexington’s captain of the militia, John Parker, that British troops were on their way. Parker called for his Minute Men and 77 arrived at the town’s green. After learning from Parker that the best-trained and best-equipped troops Britain had were on their way, the Minute Men voted to disband, lie low and do nothing to provoke the British.

Upon learning from Revere of the British march, Hancock grabbed a pistol and started to join the Minute Men. But Adams persuaded him that their capture by the British would be a major coup for Great Britain and huge loss for the rebel cause. Reluctantly, he relented. However, about four hours later, after learning the Minute Men had dispersed, Hancock met with Parker and the Minute Men who remained on the green. Shortly thereafter the drum was sounded and the Minute Men reassembled.

Hancock and Adams climbed into a chaise to leave the area just as British troops arrived. With orders to capture and hold two bridges leading into Concord and the knowledge that Revere was spreading word of their mission, the British commanders had no intention of engaging the Minute Men on the Lexington green. And Parker had ordered his men to let the British march by and not molest them unless they acted first.

As British troops marched in quick-time past the green, cursing the rebels all the while, British Major John Pitcairn told the Minute Men, “Disperse ye villains, ye rebels! Disperse! Lay down your arms! Why don’t you lay down your arms and disperse?”

After standing fast as most of the British troops passed and defying the British call to lay down their arms, Parker told his men to disband. Some began to walk away, carrying their muskets with them, and it seemed as if the crisis would pass without incident. But someone—no one was sure who but it was thought to have come from a nearby tavern or hedge—fired a shot and all hell broke loose.

Upon hearing the gunfire as the chaise rode away, Adams told Hancock, “Oh, what a glorious morning is this.” Seeing that Hancock mistook his meaning, for it was dawning a nice spring morning, Adams said, “I mean, what a glorious morning for America.”

Back on the Lexington green it was anything but. One of the Minute Men, Jonas Parker, who had vowed to never run from British guns, fell from a musket ball. He tried to fire from the ground but was bayoneted where he lay. The Minute Men fled the green and the British fired into their backs. When the smoke cleared, eight Minute Men lay dead on the green.

Shortly after 1 a.m., Samuel Prescott arrived in Concord and gave word of the British march. Bells in the town began to ring and the Concord Minute Men began to gather at Wright’s tavern. As day broke a messenger arrived from Lexington telling of gunfire on the green, but he was unsure whether the British had fired only powder as a warning, or if they were actually shooting.

About 250 men of the militia decided to carry the battle to the British and began marching east toward Lexington. After they had traveled about a mile they saw the British troops coming their way and they halted, waiting until the British were about 500 yards away.

The Minute Men then did an about face and marched back toward Concord. As they neared town some of the Minute Men were ordered to command a high ridge to deny it to the British and the rest debated what to do next. The Reverend William Emerson said, “Let us stand our ground. If we die, let us die here.”

But the Minute Men weren’t quite ready for battle and they faded back to see what the British would do. The British troops secured the bridges and then began to spread out in search of weapons and rebel leaders.

The troops burned what weapons they found and also cut down the town’s Liberty Pole and threw it onto the fire. Seeing the smoke from the bonfire over the hill, one of Concord’s volunteers asked if they were going to sit back and watch while the British burned the town to the ground.

They were told to get ready to move, but not fire until fired upon and then fire as fast as possible. They marched toward the bridges.

As the Minute Men approached the bridge, British Captain Walter-Sloan Laurie told his men to remove the bridges’ planks to make them unusable, but the Minute Men told them to stop and the British troops complied. Laurie ordered his troops into formation for street fighting, a tactic designed for fighting in narrow roads and alleys surrounded by buildings, not out in the open.

As the distance between the two armies narrowed, once again a musket went off without the order to fire being given, and the battle commenced. The Minute Men fired as rapidly as possible and advanced, driving the British off the bridge. The British troops broke and ran to the center of town.

British commanders regained order and collected their troops, but they were soon surrounded by Minute Men, whose ranks had swelled once the firing began. The order was given for the British to withdraw from Concord and the march back began.

Minute Men, hiding behind houses, barns, fences and trees, harassed the British as they retreated.

Back in Lexington, after the dead were removed from the green, Captain Parker reassembled his men, along with some newly arrived volunteers, and began to march toward Concord. Hearing the sound of the British retreat coming his way, Parker ordered his volunteers to take cover.

The British troops ran headlong into the Lexington volunteers seeking to avenge their fallen comrades. The British had no idea how many troops were facing them, but the shooting was intense. Before long, the British again broke and ran.

In Lexington, British officers got in front of their troops and again got them into order. They began a retreat toward Boston. They whole way Minute Men harassed the retreating British ranks.

When the day was done, 49 Americans were dead, 39 were wounded and five were missing. Of the vaunted British army, 73 were dead, 74 were wounded and 26 were missing. Against overwhelming odds, American volunteers had defeated troops from the mightiest army in the world.

After the fighting was over, Dr. Joseph Warren, who had become something of hero for his actions treating wounded Minute Men as the battle raged around him, put out a call for volunteers:

“Our all is at stake. Death and devastation are the instant consequences of delay. Every moment is infinitely precious. An hour lost may deluge your country in blood and entail perpetual slavery upon the few of your prosperity who may survive the carnage.”

Thousands of volunteers arrived for the cause. Thus began the war for American independence.

Now we have a new war for independence. It’s a war to make us independent from the slavery of the debt burden put on us by the Federal Reserve and the actions of the elected elites. It’s a war that will require the courage exhibited by the Minute Men on April 19.

It’s going to require sacrifice and it’s going to be difficult. But it’s obvious from the most recent budget deal that Congress still doesn’t get it. The plutocrats are crowing about cutting $38 billion from the budget as the deficit grew by $58 billion in the days they debated the cuts.

It’s time and past time to get to work contacting your representative in Congress to tell him or her that things have to change, that government has to be cut, that the Constitution has to be adhered to. Remind him or her that an election is coming soon, and you are watching and taking notes.

Undoing 100 years of damage is going to be difficult. It’s going to require a new way of thinking about the role of government. It’s going to require commitment and courage.

Do you have the commitment and courage of the Minute Men?

(Descriptions of the battles taken from Patriots, by A.J. Langguth.)

Now THAT’S funny!

2011-04-14T14:39:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, MSNBC host Chris Mathews of “Hardball” fame stated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan would "kill half the people that watch this show." To which actor and former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson tweeted: “That's terrible. Hope his other viewer will be OK.”

Senator Lee Defends the Tea Party

2011-04-12T08:37:00.001-07:00

John Cleese And The Terror Threat Level Of Nations

2011-04-04T10:07:00.000-07:00

The British response to terrorist threats.

Many thanks to funny Englishman, John Cleese, for the following:

The English are concerned about the recent increase in terrorist activities, and have therefore raised their security level from "miffed" to "peeved." If the threats continue to grow, the security levels may be raised to "irritated" or even "a bit cross." (The English have not seen "a bit cross" since the blitz in 1940, when tea supplies nearly ran out.) Terrorists have been recategorized from "tiresome" to "a bloody nuisance." The last time Britain issued "a bloody nuisance" warning was in 1588, when Spain launched the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "pis*ed off" to "let's go get the bas*ards." They don't have any other levels—which is why they have been placed on the front lines of the British Army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced that it has raised its terror alert from "run" to "hide." The only two higher levels in France are "collaborate" and "surrender."

Meanwhile, the Spanish are excited to see that their new submarines are ready to deploy. These beautiful new vessels have glass bottoms, so the Spanish sailors can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Down under, Australia has raised its security level from "no worries, mate" to "she'll be all right." The next escalation would be "we may need to cancel the barbie this weekend." The final level is "Crikey! The barbie is cancelled." Australia has never faced a crisis so severe that it merited this highest level.

Thanks to John Cleese, British writer, actor for today's laugh.

The above article was published in the Personal Liberty Digest on April 1, 2011.

Porker of the Month

2011-04-01T08:17:00.000-07:00

The article below was published March 30 on the Citizens Against Government Waste website.

CAGW Names Senator Harry Reid Porker of the Month

Today, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) bestowed upon Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) the March “Porker of the Month” Award for his absurd belief that a federally-funded Cowboy Poetry Festival in Elko, Nevada (pop. 17,000) constitutes essential government spending. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), which allots a small part of its $146 million budget to the festival, was defunded under H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2011, which Sen. Reid helped defeat in the Senate. On March 8, 2011, he described the proposed termination in a Senate floor speech as “mean-spirited,” stating that were it not for NEH’s federal money, the Cowboy Poetry Festival and “the tens of thousands of people who come there every year, would not exist.”

One day after Sen. Reid made his preposterous statement, Western Folklife Center Executive Director Charlie Seemann commented that the NEH funds just seven percent of the festival, and that he and his fellow cowboys “could certainly continue if we lose that funding.” That’s the individual, entrepreneurial spirit that has made America great, and it contrasts sharply with the attitude of Sen. Reid, who believes that taxpayers should pay for everything, even if a program can and should stand on its own.

In tribute to Sen. Reid and the Cowboy Poetry Festival, CAGW has decided to try its hand at a bit of verse. As Robert Frost wrote, “a poem begins as a lump in the throat, a sense of wrong.” So we begin.

Dollar’s Inferno

Midway upon the journey of his life,
Reid found himself in Washington, D.C.
Once there he gathered money from us all,
Convinced the world would call it charity.

Kubla Con

In Carson Mr. Reid began
To guzzle from the public trough;
Engorged with pork, each term he ran
With gifts to Special Interest Man,
Which ticked the taxpayers off.

Flunking Liberty

2011-03-31T09:07:00.000-07:00

The following article was written by Ben Crystal and was published in the March 31, 2011, Personal Liberty Digest. * *

Flunking Liberty
by Ben Crystal
March 31, 2011 *

A story in a recent edition of Newsweek detailed an effort to determine the civic pride of our fellow Americans. The left-leaning journal offered 1,000 readers—they borrowed a few hundred from US Weekly—the opportunity to take the same citizenship test required of all prospective ingredients in our ever-expanding melting pot.
*

Keep in mind, with President Barack Obama’s dereliction of duty in dealing with illegal immigration, I’m not certain if that many people have actually taken the citizenship test recently. *

I have no interest in burdening you with another maudlin monologue about Americans’ lack of civic pride (not to mention civic understanding). Lectures about the need for the people of the fruited plain to make time in between episodes of “Jersey Shore” to learn about the Bill of Rights are boring, depressing and trite. *

Besides, anyone who really cares about the travails of “Pauly D.” and “J-Woww” is unlikely to give a damn how many voting members are part of the U.S. House of Representatives. The answer, by the way, is 435. If you answered correctly, then congratulations are in order. You just wrecked the national grade curve. I’d make some teacher’s pet crack, but something tells me most of the teachers’ union layabouts drew the same blank as the rest of the class. *

Never let it be said that Ben Crystal isn’t as helpful as he is suave, debonair and quick-witted. Instead of standing on the dais and acting as if I have suede patches welded to my elbows, I’m going to invite each of you to partake of a little academic challenge. Call it: The Personal Liberty Digest’s™ Super-Citizen Survey. There’s no time limit, and you’re welcome to cheat. Think of it as an exercise in “outcome-based education.” If you don’t know the answer, just do as Obama does: Lie. *

And remember, kids: There are no stupid answers, only stupid people. I wouldn’t worry too much about the stupid people. They’re over at Dailykos.com telling each other how tolerant they are for hating everyone who isn’t just like them. *

To wit: *

Question 1: Sarah Palin is: *
A. A spiritual godmother of the Tea Party movement.
B. A potential 2012 Republican nominee for President.
C. Capable of making a kill shot from a moving helicopter. (AWESOME!)
D. Pretty hot. * *

Questions 2: Michelle Bachman is: *

A. A spiritual godmother of the Tea Party movement.
B. A potential 2012 Republican nominee for President.
C. Terrifying to Democrats who are unused to women who still look like women.
D. Pretty hot. * *

Question 3: Hillary Clinton is: *

A. The Secretary of State (for now).
B. Not running for President in 2012 (honest!).
C. Dean Rusk, compared to her boss.
D. Less hot. * *

Question 4: Libya is:

A. A nation in North Africa.
B. A nation in the throes of civil war.
C. A nation with which the United States is NOT currently at war.
D. A rash which can be cleared up with a non-prescription ointment.

Question 5: Moammar Ghadhafi:

A. Is the dictator of Libya and a sponsor of the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing.
B. Keeps a bedroom decorated just in case his special friend Louis Farrakhan drops in for a romantic evening.
C. Dresses like Elizabeth Taylor (the late 80′s-onward version, not the Cleopatra version).
D. Has to be the front runner for the Keith Richards look-alike contest.

Question 6: Scott Walker is:

A. The duly-elected Governor of Wisconsin.
B. Standing up to Democrat-sponsored union thugs on behalf of children.
C. A union-busting hero.
D. Obviously related to Hitler somehow.

Question 7: The Service Employees International Union:

A. Is a group of dangerously violent thugs officially endorsed by the Democrat Party.
B. Puts the “hug” in “thug.”
C. Wears purple because it’s so slimming.
D. Is probably watching me from across the street.

Question 8: Sendai is:

A. That new sushi joint down the street.
B. A Japanese city devastated by a recent tsunami.
C. Nowhere near Rio, Mr. President.
D. Still nicer than Detroit.

Question 9: Despite a series of bailouts and so-called “stimulus” packages, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is currently:

A. Lower than it was during the Carter Administration.
B. Lower than it is in Kenya.
C. Lower than it is in Detroit.
D. Higher than it is in George Soros’s front office.

Question 10: Common Cause, Moveon.org and ACORN are:

A. A group of Democrat Party adjunct organizations.
B. A group of Democrat Party adjunct organizations.
C. A group of Democrat Party adjunct organizations.
D. About as collectively intelligent as the kids in the Chuck-E-Cheese ball pit.

Question 11: Kinetic Military Action is:
A. A euphemism for a limited-scope military engagement.
B. A nice way of describing the sort of marching done by the New Black Panther Party. (Listen, fellas. I love the berets. But you’re wearing them like mimes, not soldiers.)
C. Obama’s desperate attempt to look like a wartime leader.
D. Probably a waste of time, under the current circumstances.

Question 12: The Huffington Post has banned Andrew Breitbart from its front page because:

A. Breitbart is a bigot.
B. Breitbart is a liar.
C. Breitbart is mean.
D. Ex-Obama Administration laughingstock Van Jones said he would hold his breath until the Huffpo shunted Breitbart to the even-less-read back sections.

Question 13: Joe Biden is:

A. The Vice President of the United States.
B. Neil Kinnock’s number one fan.
C. Sy Sperling’s favorite client.
D. That weird-looking old dude who f-bombed the President last year.

Question 14: Nancy Pelosi is:

A. The former Speaker of the House; and now the House minority leader.
B. Even more surprised-looking in real life.
C. Still planning to “drain the swamp.”
D. No longer two heartbeats from the Oval Office.

Question 15: Harry Reid is:

A. The Senate Majority Leader.
B. Deputy Droop-a-Long’s long-lost brother.
C. Oddly obsessed by hookers in Nevada.
D. Eminently qualified to hold Pelosi’s purse.

Question 16: Obamacare is:

A. A plan to deliver top-quality healthcare to every American, regardless of ability to pay.
B. A bureaucratic monstrosity which is more about government intervention in your life than it is about healthcare.
C. Really just the reanimated corpse of the mid-90s “Hillarycare.”
D. Probably going to force you to watch reruns of “House” to determine whether or not you have cancer.

Question 17: President Obama’s energy policy entails:

A. Exploiting domestic resources, including fossil fuels, in order to lessen the economic burden on his constituents without sending billions to corrupt and/or hostile foreign powers.
B. Signing an executive order requiring all Americans to drive mopeds to work.
C. Paving Kansas, Nebraska and parts of the Dakotas in photovoltaic cells.
D. Aiming Ed Schultz at a bunch of windmills.

Question 18: The national debt of the United States is now:

A. Worth about 97 percent of the U.S. annual GDP.
B. Increasing at a geometric rate.
C. Rapidly approaching one of those numbers that end up being used as a name for a search engine.
D. Still smaller than Michael Moore’s waistline.

Question 19: President Obama hails from:

A. Hawaii.
B. Kenya.
C. Chicago.
D. A secret laboratory in Warren Buffett’s basement.

Question 20: The current Head of the Executive Branch of the government of the United States is:

A. John Boehner.
B. Harry Reid.
C. Barack Obama.
D. Oprah.

If you struggled with this exam, fret not. Many of your compatriots are still trying to figure out if Dean Rusk is that guy who’s married to Tori Spelling. In administering the actual citizenship test, Newsweek was likely demonstrating Americans’ lack of civic understanding. But they forgot that civic understanding may not mean the same thing to everyone.

An old colleague of mine used to say that “civic duty” encompasses everything from jury duty to picking up after Rover when he does his business on the sidewalk. That colleague of mine is entirely correct; albeit enormously optimistic.

In the age of Obama, I have learned to set my sights a bit on the low side. Don’t take stuff which isn’t yours. Don’t hit girls. Don’t make your mother cry. And once in a while, learn something useful. You can’t always count on British MP’s to do your homework for you, Mr. Vice President.

I’d tell everyone to go back to school, but there’s no point. The teachers are all cutting class to go scream at the Governor of Wisconsin.

–Ben Crystal

This Week In History

2011-03-23T07:17:00.000-07:00

The following was in the March 23, 2011, online edition of Personal Liberty Alerts
http://www.personalliberty.com

The Stamp Act

On March 22, 1765, the British Parliament passed an odious piece of legislation known as the Stamp Act. It imposed a tax on every piece of paper used by colonists in America, including all legal documents, licenses, newspapers and other publications... and even playing cards.

The colonists were outraged by this "taxation without representation" and launched massive protests. After a decade of appeals accomplished nothing, Patrick Henry urged Virginia's House of Burgesses to adopt his Stamp Act Resolves. When the legislators approved four of the resolutions, Virginia Governor Fauquier (who was appointed by the King) ordered the assembly dissolved.

The next day, on March 23, 1775, Henry gave his famous speech, which ended with, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty or Give me Death." Within a month, Britain and the colonies were at war, Fauquier fled his post, and Patrick Henry was named Governor of Virginia.

I think you know how the story ends.

--Chip Wood

This Nation Can Endure

2011-03-10T08:13:00.000-08:00

These are the pillars upon which any nation’s national security rests:

-Faith in God and in the universal brotherhood of all mankind.

-Strong homes and family ties.

-A political climate and governmental system that protects man’s inalienable rights.

-Elected government officials who are wise and good, and a vigilant, informed citizenry.

Today we are in a worldwide battle, the first of its kind in history between two opposing systems, freedom and slavery; between the spirit of Christianity and the spirit of the antichrist for the bodies and souls of men. May God grant that we will win the battle by alertness, by determination, by courage, and by an energizing realization of the danger.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Are we willing to pay the price? The days ahead are sobering and challenging and will demand the faith, prayers, and loyalty of all men to the truth. As the ancient apostle declared: “The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” (Romans 13:12.)

May God give us the wisdom to recognize the danger of complacency, the threat to our freedom, and the strength to meet this danger courageously.

(Source: Ezra Taft Benson, This Nation Shall Endure, published 1977)

Brotherly Love

2011-03-07T09:18:00.000-08:00

Missouri Mormons Open Their Church To Muslim Neighbors
Reported by Dan Rascon for the online Meridian Magazine
Wednesday, March 02 2011

Exactly 7:45 in the evening and the call for 8 o'clock prayer, is heard in a mosque 1300 miles east of Salt Lake City in St. Louis, Missouri. One by one fellow worshippers arrive. They stand side by side, touching shoulders, wall to wall.

They are Muslims, and according to their faith, Islam, they are supposed to pray 5 times a day.

"We are praying to God," said Mufti Minhajuddin, the Muslim leader in St. Louis. "We stand up and we praise him and then we bow down and praise him as well ."

Their holy book is called the Quran which contains 6,600 verses of what Muslims believe to be direct revelation from god to their prophet Mohammed.

"We believe in the prophets of God, that God created this world and sent down the prophets throughout the ages who were inspired with revelation and taught mankind what is the meaning of our existence," said Minhajuddin.

One o'clock in the afternoon the next day, and the same call for prayer is heard, but it's not coming from a mosque. Oddly enough, it's coming from an LDS church building in St. Charles, Missouri, about 25 minutes west of St. Louis.

And they are not Latter-day saints coming inside the gym to worship. They are Muslims. 15 to 30 of them come here every Friday to call upon god in prayer.

"Friday prayer is very important for us afternoon, just like {Christians} gather on Sundays," said Magbool Khan, the Muslim leader in St. Charles, "...it's very important that Muslims gather on Friday and pray."

This all came about because of LDS member Deborah Coffey who works with other faiths as part of the Interfaith Counsel in St. Charles.

"I didn't see it as unusual, I didn't see it as uncomfortable," said Coffey.

Several years ago the Muslim leaders came to the Interfaith Counsel in St. Charles asking for a place to worship on Friday's.

So Deborah went to her stake president Terry Slezak.

"When it was first brought to my attention that there was an opportunity I didn't hesitate," said Slezak. "Their desire was to have a place to gather to pray to God, and to me it's like if we were in a place where the church was not strong enough and we didn't have a building and we wanted to pray to God I would hope that someone would reach out to us."

"I actually took it as an honor that they would feel comfortable coming to us," said Coffey.

St. Louis is a fascinating city. It sits on the edge of the Mississippi river, the dividing line to the state of Illinois. It's best known for its 630 foot architectural wonder called the Gateway Arch. The metropolitan area is home to about 75 thousand Muslims and 14 thousand Mormons.

The Muslims in St. Charles, are hoping to one day build a mosque on a piece of land a short distance away from the LDS church where they currently worship in order to keep up with the growth.

No date has been set for the construction of the mosque in St. Charles. At this time they are still in the process of purchasing the land, so it could be a while before anything is built.

The LDS church says there is no time limit for the Muslims to worship at their building.

Before the arrangement the only place they had to go to in St. Charles was the home of Nadeem Farooqui, a nice home but too small for worship on Fridays.

"This is actually my living room," said Farooqui. "It's not big enough to serve the whole community."

So they grab their carpets out of a closet and roll them out inside the LDS church's gym, take off their shoes, and begin their 30 minute worship service.

For Mormons the gym is usually a place for social activities like basketball. But it's the plainness of the gym that the Muslims prefer. There are no benches or podiums or images of Jesus Christ like in some of the other rooms.

There have been a few occasions when the gym is being used by the LDS congregation. So the Muslims go to the primary room. But inside the primary room there are images of Christ - so they cover them up and go about their service.

Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was a great prophet but not the son of god like Christians do. But who believes what is no matter to the two faiths, at least in St. Charles

"We don't have a need to proselyte they don't have a need to proselyte. It's not a missionary tool at all, it's strictly a friendshiping tool, building that friendship," said Coffey.

"Quran teach you all good things just like a Bible. Quran don't teach you to go hurt any another person or anything like that," said Khan.

And so the Muslims continue to go, week after week, praising god, and thanking him for this place of worship.

"They are very good, they're very nice people, very polite, very cooperative. Very nice peoples," said Mir Asif, a Muslim worshipper.

"It was a blessing for us that we have a bigger place, said Khan. "God bless Mormon church they opened the door for us and we are very pleased, very happy and god will give them a reward."

http://connect2utah.com/news-story/?nxd_id=133926&shr=addthis

Can We Preserve What They Wrought?

2011-03-03T09:22:00.000-08:00

by Ezra Taft Benson
posted at http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/ezra-taft-benson/can-we-preserve-what-they-wrought/

"Today we live in a land choice above all other lands. We live amid unbounded prosperity—this because of the heritage bequeathed to us by our forebears—a heritage of self-reliance, initiative, personal industry, and faith in God, all in an atmosphere of freedom.

"Were these Founding Fathers and pioneer forefathers to counsel us today in their fundamental beliefs, so manifest by their acts, what would they say to us?

"First: They would counsel us to have faith in God. It was by this faith that they were sustained in their privations, sacrifices, and suffering. They placed their trust in God. He was their defense, their refuge, and their salvation. Their faith is perhaps best expressed by the father of our country, George Washington: 'The success, which has hitherto attended our united efforts, we owe to the gracious interposition of Heaven; and to that interposition let us gratefully ascribe the praise of victory, and the blessings of peace.' (To the Executive of New Hampshire, November 3, 1789, Writings, 12:175.)

"Yes, it was this faith in God that sustained them in their hours of extremity. We too will need this same faith to sustain us in the critical days ahead.

"Second: They would counsel us to strengthen our homes and family ties. Though they did not possess our physical comforts, they left their posterity a legacy of something more enduring: a hearthside where parents were close by their children, where daily devotions, family prayer, scripture reading, and the singing of hymns were commonplace. Families worked, worshiped, played, and prayed together. Family home evening, now a once-a-week practice among the Saints, was to our pioneer forebears almost a nightly occurrence.

"Can we not see in their examples the solutions to problems threatening families today? Were we to pattern our homes accordingly, divorce would be eliminated, children would be welcomed and guided, and love between parents and children would abound. There would be no generation gap. Family unity and solidarity, crowned with love and happiness, would prevail.

"Third: They would counsel us in the dignity of work, to practice thrift, and to be self-sustaining. Theirs was a philosophy that neither the world nor government owes a man his bread. Man is commanded by God to live by the sweat of his own brow, not someone else’s. In his First Inaugural Address, Thomas Jefferson counseled us toward a wise and frugal government, one that 'shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned.'

"The Founding Fathers would be in complete agreement with this counsel from Brigham Young: 'Beautify your gardens, your houses, your farms; beautify the city. This will make us happy, and produce plenty.' (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 302.) 'To be slothful, wasteful, lazy and indolent . . . is unrighteous.' (Ibid., p. 303.) “Learn to sustain yourselves; lay up grain and flour, and save it against a day of scarcity.” (Ibid., p. 293.) '. . . If you cannot obtain all you wish for today, learn to do without.' (Ibid., p. 293.) 'Be prompt in everything, and especially to pay your debts.' (Ibid., p. 303.)

"Finally: These noble founders and pioneers—our benefactors—would counsel us to preserve the freedoms granted to us by God. They knew that the foundation of this nation was spiritual, that the source of all our blessings was God. They knew that this nation can only prosper in an atmosphere of freedom.

"Those intrepid forebears knew that their righteousness was the indispensable ingredient to liberty, that this was the greatest legacy they could pass on to future generations. They would counsel us to preserve this liberty by alert righteousness. Righteousness is always measured by a nation or an individual keeping the commandments of God.

"In the outer office of the Council of Twelve hangs a painting by Utah artist Arnold Friberg, depicting George Washington, the father of our country, on his knees at Valley Forge. That painting symbolizes the faith of our forebears. I wish it could be in every American home.
In the 1940s, while serving as the executive officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives in Washington, D.C., I saw in a Hilton Hotel a placard depicting Uncle Sam, representing America, on his knees in humility and prayer. Beneath the placard was the inscription “Not beaten there by the hammer and sickle, but freely, responsibly, confidently. . . . We need fear nothing or no one save God.”

"That picture has stayed in my memory ever since. America on her knees—in recognition that all our blessings come from God! America on her knees—out of a desire to serve the God of this land by keeping His commandments! America on her knees—not driven there in capitulation to some despotic government, but on her knees freely, willingly, gratefully! This is the sovereign remedy to all of our problems and the preservation of our liberties.

"Yes, those valiant patriots and pioneers left us a great heritage. Are we prepared to do what they did? Will we pledge our lives, our possessions, our sacred honor for future generations and the upbuilding of God’s kingdom on this earth?

"Hear the challenge made to us—their descendants and beneficiaries—at the dedication of 'This Is the Place' monument, at the mouth of Emigration Canyon, July 24, 1947:
'Can we keep and preserve what they wrought? Shall we pass on to our children the heritage they left us, or shall we lightly fritter it away? Have we their faith, their bravery, their courage; could we endure their hardships and suffering, make their sacrifices, bear up under their trials, their sorrow, their tragedies, believe the simple things they knew were true, have the simple faith that worked miracles for them, follow, and not falter or fall by the wayside, where our leaders advance, face the slander and the scorn of an unpopular belief? Can we do the thousands of little and big things that made them the heroic builders of a great Church, a great commonwealth?' (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Address at the Dedication of 'This Is the Place' Monument, July 24, 1947; in Improvement Era 50:626.)

"There should be no doubt what our task is today. If we truly cherish the heritage we have received, we must maintain the same virtues and the same character of our stalwart forebears—faith in God, courage, industry, frugality, self-reliance, and integrity. We have the obligation to maintain what those who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor gave to future generations. Our opportunity and obligation for doing so is clearly upon us. May we begin to repay this debt by preserving and strengthening this heritage in our own lives, in the lives of our children, their children, and generations yet unborn."

(Source: Ezra Taft Benson, This Nation Shall Endure, published 1977)

The Right to Choose

2011-02-18T09:57:00.000-08:00

"The right to direct ones own life is Gods greatest gift to man. Free Agency is the impelling source of the soul’s progress. It is the purpose of the Lord that man become like Him. In order for man to achieve this it was necessary for the Creator first to make him free, even God could not make men like Himself without making them Free."
(Joseph Fielding Smith “Doctrines of Salvation” Vol. I pp58-59)

Self-Government

2011-02-14T08:25:00.001-08:00

"I have frequently said that the greatest endowment God ever gave to man is good, sound, solid sense to know how to govern ourselves" (The Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 265).

Fifteen Principles for A Proper Government

2011-02-09T09:27:00.000-08:00

FIFTEEN PRINCIPLES WHICH MAKE FOR GOOD AND PROPER GOVERNMENT
By Ezra Taft Benson

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.

The Sacred Constitution

2011-01-19T07:59:00.000-08:00

"The Constitution of the United States is a great and treasured part of my religion. . . . The overturning, or the material changing, or the distortion of any fundamental principle of our constitutional government would thus do violence to my religion. . . . My faith teaches me that the Constitution is an inspired document drawn by the hands of men whom God raised up for that very purpose; that God has given His approval of the Government set up under the Constitution 'for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles': that the constitutional 'principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before' the Lord. (D&C 101:77, 98:5.) . . .

"So far as my knowledge goes, this is the only government now on the earth to which God has given such an approval. It is His plan for the government of free men." [President J. Reuben Clark, Stand Fast by Our Constitution, pp. 7, 172]

Personal Responsibility

2011-01-13T13:05:00.000-08:00

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."- R. Reagan

Herman Cain - Next President?

2011-01-12T14:47:00.000-08:00

Tea Partier Herman Cain Announces Presidential Exploratory Committee
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tea-partier-herman-cain-announces-presidential-exploratory-committee/

Boehner Pays Respects

2011-01-12T10:15:00.001-08:00

2011-01-02T16:06:00.000-08:00

Political Connections With Other Countries

December 30, 2010 by Bob Livingston

The United States now has hundreds of military bases and tens of thousands of troops stationed around the globe. U.S. State Department cables released by WikiLeaks reveal that U.S. diplomats pressure foreign governments to do the bidding of U.S. corporatocracy, and threaten retaliation if they don’t comply.

This is a far cry from the type of foreign policy our Founders envisioned.

In a 1775 letter to Patrick Henry, George Washington wrote: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been… to comply strictly with all our engagements foreign and domestic; but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home."

Instead, the U.S. is a servant of its global corporatist masters and is neither respected abroad nor happy at home.

We need a leader willing to step up and begin to disengage us from foreign entanglements.

http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/political-connections-with-other-countries/?eiid=&rmid=2010_12_30_PLA_[PIZ5310D]&rrid=238434856

Merry Christmas & Happy Birthday Jesus

2010-12-24T14:33:00.000-08:00

One Solitary Life
Written by Dr. James Allan Francis in 1925

He was born in an obscure village,
The child of a peasant woman.
He grew up in another obscure village
Where he worked in a carpenter shop
Until He was 30.

He never wrote a book.
He never held an office.
He never went to college.
He never visited a big city.

He never traveled more than 200 miles
From the place where He was born.
He did none of the things
Usually associated with greatness.
He had no credentials but Himself.

He was only 33
When He died.
His friends ran away.
One of them denied Him.

He was turned over to His enemies
And went through the mockery of a trial.
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves.
While dying, His executioners gambled for His clothing,
The only property He had on earth.

When He was dead,
He was laid in a borrowed grave
Through the pity of a friend.

Twenty centuries have come and gone
And today Jesus is the central figure of the human race
And the leader of mankind's progress.

All the armies that have ever marched,
All the navies that have ever sailed,
All the parliaments that have ever sat,
All the kings that ever reigned put together
Have not affected the life of mankind on earth
As powerfully as that One Solitary Life.

Self-Reliance

2010-12-23T08:17:00.000-08:00

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President-

The 2010 Twelve Days of Winter

2010-12-14T12:16:00.000-08:00

The United Order vs. Socialism

2010-12-10T12:18:00.000-08:00

An article by Marion G. Romney from http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/marion-g-romney/is-socialism-the-united-order

Webster defines socialism as:
“A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory.” (Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. unabridged, 1951.)

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:
“Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)

George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, “a short and comprehensive definition is impossible. We can only say,” he concludes, “that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange.” (Ibid., p. 888.)

Socialism arose “out of the economic division in society.” During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against “the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system.”

Communism, starting point
The “Communist Manifesto” drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.)
The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour parties of Europe and the New World, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.)

German Socialism
A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.

Fabian Society
In the 1880′s a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands “for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . . endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a ‘welfare state.’” Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats Fabians aim “at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely socialistic party.” They appeal “to the electorate not as revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system.” (Ibid.)

Forms and policies of socialism
The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.

They all advocate:
(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property “pass under some form of coordinated public control.”
(2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims.
(3) “That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system. . . .” (Ibid.)

So much now for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing.

The United Order
Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order the Lord’s program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.

On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later he said:

“I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . .and all things therein are mine.
“And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
“But it must needs be done in mine own way. . . .” (D&C 104:14–16.)

Consecration and stewardship
On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D&C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.

To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a “covenant and a deed which” could not “be broken.” (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.

Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make “every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D&C 51:3.)

This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.
The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.

These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.

Comparisons and contrasts: Similarities
The following are similarities: Both
(1) deal with production and distribution of goods;
(2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities;
(3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.

Differences
Now the differences:
(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.

Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, “You don’t need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn’t come into the United Order.” (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, “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” (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.

God-given agency preserved in United Order
Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

(4) The United Order is non-political.
Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.

(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.
Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.)

Socialism not United Order
Socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

“At the end of the year [1964] parties affiliated with the [Socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.)

United States has adopted much socialism
We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:

“We’re going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give it to the ‘have nots.’” (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)

Socialism takes: United Order gives
That is the spirit of socialism: We’re going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We’re going to give.

We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.

As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote “industry, thrift and self-respect,” for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one.

As to the fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses 7:16–18 and 4 Nephi 2:-3, 15-16. If we had time we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.

What can we do?

Now what can we do about it?

As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, which the Lord placed in 1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism is taking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: “Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?” Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, “No, by no means!” We have much to do, and fortunately for us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order.

Constitution God-inspired
He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man’s untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man’s agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated “the laws and constitution” required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help,

Just and holy principles
“According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . .” (D&C 101:77–78, 80.)

Sustain Constitutional law
Previously he had said:
“And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me.
“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man's agency];
“And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.
“I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.
“Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
“Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:4–10.)

These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that “according to just and holy principles,” the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the “principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before” God; that, “as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free.

“When the wicked rule, the people mourn”
Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: “Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.” Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he concluded: “Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold. . . .”
In its context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are “wise” enough to understand freedom—as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order—and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.

“. . . under no other government in the world could the Church have been established,” said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:
“. . . if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees.” (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 58-59.)

Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order.

What to do about United Order
The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: “And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption.” (D&C 105:34.)

Further implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those “just and holy principles” of the Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or “the welfare state,” for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.

In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order.

As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop’s storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put “all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop” (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were to “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . .” (D&C 119:4) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark:
“. . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church.”

What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.

Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop’s storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop’s storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose. . . .

“We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . . farmed for the benefit of the poor. . . .

“Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.”

It is thus apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, “we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.” (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.)

The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves.

A Tale of Two Brothers

2010-11-22T08:04:00.000-08:00

The article below was written by Gary C. Lawrence for the November 17, 2010 edition of Meridian Magazine online. http://www.ldsmag.com/lds-church-updates/article/6661?ac=1

Glenn Beck and Harry Reid – Future Buddies?
By Gary C. Lawrence

Normally, the argumentation device in the teaser runs something like this, to borrow a comparison that has popped up again:

You show me a state that can elect both Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown as governors, and I’ll show you a state with a serious identity crisis.

The Church, of course, does not have an identity crisis, so the punch line in our case is more introspective:

You show me a church that has both Glenn Beck and Harry Reid as active members and I’ll show you a big tent religion that … is destined to come out of obscurity.

How can that be? After all, the Church is not unique in having various cultures, ideologies, and partisanship under one umbrella, and there are many organizations that will never be noticed, no matter the polarization among their members.

I submit it’s because we are members in more than names on a roll, in more than dabbling now and then with some common interest.

It has to do with the perspective we gain at the temple.

Both Brother Beck and Brother Reid faithfully attend the temple, I am told, and are just two examples of a special kind of glue – temple worship – that binds people of contrasting political viewpoints together because it has the power to bind generations together.

A Church that can foster such commitment from those holding intensely opposite political positions will not long remain hidden to the world.

When I served as bishop, a good friend once complained about a testimony – better said, a political-mony – that a sister had given in sacrament meeting that morning, which led to a discussion of politics in the Church. I suggested that if he and I – being of different political parties – were to list our personal values side by side, that we would discover not a dime’s worth of difference. He agreed. Our only difference, I continued, was that he has chosen one vehicle to effectuate them and I another – like getting on two buses, each of which promised to take us from Orange County to Los Angeles.

We both want to arrive at the same destination. The problem comes if one of the buses veers toward Barstow.

The Church in New Testament times had the same problems. Jewish, Greek, Roman and miscellaneous pagan converts brought their own desired vehicles – political, cultural and religious – with them, a practice that years later tubed the Church, but for a few decades was held in check by such preaching as Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians:

“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.”[i]

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”[ii]

In other words, Paul said, put aside your past, your ideologies, your pet projects and be enveloped in the broad, eternal warmth of Christ’s gospel.

We are told in today’s scriptures, that many from among “all sects, parties, and denominations”[iii] are seeking the truth, and it is to be expected that vestiges of previous associations will continue for a while until they fade in importance against the great truths of the temple.

But until that happens, active members will on occasion find themselves in a vehicle crisis – what earthly vehicles, if any, will we ride to reach our goals?

Back to Harry and Glenn.

Past experiences have shaped their views and motivations:

Reid: a hard-scrabble life in the Nevada desert with few modern conveniences led to a burning ambition and a desire to help the underdog.

Beck: a youth spent tinkering with addictions, a failed marriage, and then came guiding principles from a Mormon friend that turned his life around.

Judging from what I’ve heard about them, I believe both men will remain true to gospel principles and their mutual goal of returning to the Father’s presence. And I would not be surprised to see them arm in arm at that great future priesthood meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman.
But before that happens, one will find out he’s been riding the wrong bus.

Bloggers' note: Our opinion is that not only is Harry Reid on the wrong bus, he's not even close to being in the correct bus terminal.

A Must Read

2010-11-21T19:30:00.000-08:00

We urge you to read this very articulate and well-stated post:

http://stopshouting.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-rebuttal-to-progressive-who.html

I Testify

2010-11-18T10:27:00.000-08:00

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/ezra-taft-benson/i-testify

In October of 1988 President Ezra Taft Benson gave a talk entitled "I Testify". Considering this was his final spoken message to the saints in General Conference, this talk could be considered his final testimony. The following is an abridged version of his testimony (see link at top for full article).

"As a special witness of Jesus Christ, and as His humble servant, it is now my obligation and privilege, as the Spirit dictates, to bear pure testimony and witness to that which I know to be true..."

"I testify that we are the spirit offspring of a loving God, our Heavenly Father... that God reveals His will to all men through the Light of Christ... that throughout the ages God has spoken to His children through His prophets... that a world so wicked that it killed the Son of God soon began killing the Apostles and prophets and so plunged itself into a spiritual dark age... that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith... bringing to an end the long night of apostasy... that through the Book of Mormon God has provided for our day tangible evidence that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is His prophet... America will be a blessed land unto the righteous forever..."

"I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world."

"I testify that the church and kingdom of God is increasing in strength. Its numbers are growing, as is the faithfulness of its faithful members. It has never been better organized or equipped to perform its divine mission."

"I testify that as the forces of evil increase under Lucifer’s leadership and as the forces of good increase under the leadership of Jesus Christ, there will be growing battles between the two until the final confrontation. As the issues become clearer and more obvious, all mankind will eventually be required to align themselves either for the kingdom of God or for the kingdom of the devil. As these conflicts rage, either secretly or openly, the righteous will be tested. God’s wrath will soon shake the nations of the earth and will be poured out on the wicked without measure. But God will provide strength for the righteous and the means of escape; and eventually and finally truth will triumph."

"I testify that it is time for every man to set in order his own house both temporally and spiritually... that not many years hence the earth will be cleansed. Jesus the Christ will come again, this time in power and great glory to vanquish His foes and to rule and reign on the earth... I testify to you that a fulness of joy can only come through the atonement of Jesus Christ and by obedience to all of the laws and ordinances of the gospel, which are found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

"To all these things I humbly testify and bear my solemn witness that they are true, and I do so in the name of Him who is the head of this church, even Jesus Christ, amen."

This Week In History

2010-11-17T07:08:00.000-08:00

Chip Wood wrote the following article for the Personal Liberty Alerts online publication.

The Adoption Of The Articles Of Confederation

It was 233 years ago this week that our original 13 colonies took a huge step toward nationhood. On Nov. 15, 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation. The articles vested the conduct of war and foreign policy in a Federal government, but left everything else to the States.

The Articles of Confederation were modeled after the Swiss Confederation that had been established more than four centuries earlier. On Nov. 15, 1315, the Swiss defeated the powerful Austrian empire in the Battle of Morgarten, when the men of Schwyz (a Swiss canton) lured the Austrians into the mountains and ambushed them in a pass.

The men of Schwyz killed 1,500 Austrian troops, drove hundreds more into Lake Lucerne and put the rest to flight. The country's inhabitants were so grateful they changed the name of their nation from Helvetia to Switzerland. The country has remained free, independent and faithful to its own Articles of Confederation for nearly 700 years.

Our own Articles of Confederation did not survive nearly as long. Too many Federalists objected to the almost total lack of power the articles gave the central government. Demands for a new Constitutional convention began almost at once.

We know what happened next. Some people still say it was a mistake.

--Chip Wood

A New Blog

2010-11-09T15:46:00.000-08:00

We have started a second blog that will concentrate on Nevada politics. We will also keep posting to this site with other news.

Our new site is: www.buzznv.wordpress.com

GOP Wave

2010-11-05T08:49:00.001-07:00

This would be funny...if we didn't live in Nevada.

Clueless Harry

2010-11-04T10:04:00.000-07:00

In the November 4, 2010, Las Vegas Review Journal, Harry Reid is quoted as saying that he invites Republicans to cooperate with Democrats, saying voters are tired of gridlock.

Does anyone else see the idiocy and irony of this statement? It was the DEMOCRATS who were voted out of office for their policies, not the Republicans. So why would the Republicans commit political suicide by cooperating with Democrats? Wait a minute... maybe Harry is smarter than we thought. Maybe he's intentionally trying to get Republicans to commit political suicide. Nah... no way that Harry is that smart. There certainly isn't any evidence to support the theory that he's smart.

Reid's Bullying

2010-11-03T09:39:00.000-07:00

Former F.E.C. official on Reid strong-arming: ‘I’ve never seen anything so blatant’

By: J.P. FreireAssociate Commentary Editor11/02/10 6:25 PM EDT

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/former-fec-official-on-reid-strong-arming-ive-never-seen-this-so-blatant-106560668.html

A former official with the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky, blasted the Reid campaign, saying they are clearly engaging in coercion and illegal coordination under federal campaign finance rules. “I’ve never seen anything this blatant,” he told The Examiner. “Most corporations stay far away from this because they know they can get in big trouble if they tell their employees to go out and vote for a particular candidate. That’s a big no-no.”

“There are two issues. The first is illegal coordination. The Reid campaign is specifically asking a corporation with the help of a union to get voters to the polls. It’s what a campaign usually pays for and it’s the equivalent of an illegal contribution,” he said.

The second issue, he explained, falls in federal statute 18 U.S.C. 594:
Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

“There’s clearly coercion going on,” he said. “They’re setting up a full program to get people to the polls to vote for Reid and going after supervisors who don’t do what they’re told on this.”
The Reid campaign is under fire for emails allegedly sent from a staffer to the management of mega-casino company Harrah’s. The company management, at the urging of the staffer, reportedly has been asking its employees whether they have voted yet, and agitating about Reid’s potential loss as a deathblow to the industry.

“They’re trying to get people to explain why they haven’t voted. This isn’t some general email from a corporation head to his employees saying, “look we have an election coming up, please get out and vote. These emails make clear that they’re getting people out for Reid.”

Such an offense could be punished not just by a year in fines, but also by a year in jail.

“If they have a U.S. attorney out in Nevada who is actually a real prosecutor, as opposed to a political clone who’s not willing to do his job, he’d open an investigation,” he said.Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/former-fec-official-on-reid-strong-arming-ive-never-seen-this-so-blatant-106560668.html#ixzz14EpuGuEJ

Collective or Individual Salvation?

2010-10-28T11:48:00.000-07:00

President Obama has said that he believes in 'collective salvation.' gotquestions.org states: Basically, “collective salvation” means “unless we are all saved, none of us will be saved” or “we as individuals must cooperate and sacrifice for the good of the whole.” Another way to state what collective salvation means is: “I can't be saved on my own. I have to do my part by cooperating with the group, even sacrificing, to ensure everyone else’s salvation. It is then that we’re all saved together.”

This idea is Satan's plan. It was the premise of the war in heaven: be saved together or don't be saved at all. We rejected that plan. You decide for yourself: do you believe a politician or a prophet of God?

PRESIDENT OBAMA said: You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and the other things that our money culture says you should buy, you can choose to narrow your concerns and live life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America's, but I hope you don't, not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although I believe you do have that obligation; not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get to where you are today, although I do believe you have that debt to pay. It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. And recognizing that my fate remain tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.

(Prophet) DAVID O. McKAY said: "An outstanding doctrine of the Church is that each individual carries this responsibility [of their own salvation], and that the salvation of man is a process of gradual development. . . . A man may say he believes, but if he does nothing to make that belief or faith a moving power to do, to accomplish, to produce soul growth, his protestation will avail him nothing. 'Work out your own salvation' is an exhortation to demonstrate by activity, by thoughtful obedient effort the reality of faith" (Gospel Ideals, p. 330).

VOTE!

2010-10-26T11:25:00.000-07:00

J. Reuben Clark, Jr., said:

“God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this ‘land of liberty’ from other countries.” (Improvement Era, July 1940, p. 444.)

“Patriotism,” said Theodore Roosevelt, “means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. …

“Every man,” said President Roosevelt, “who parrots the cry of ‘stand by the President’ without adding the proviso ‘so far as he serves the Republic’ takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take such an attitude.” (Theodore Roosevelt, Works, vol. 21, pp. 316, 321.)

Joseph Fielding Smith said: “Now I tell you it is time the people of the United States were waking up with the understanding that if they don’t save the Constitution from the dangers that threaten it, we will have a change of government.” (Conference Report, April 1950, p. 159.)

President Clark warned us that “we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and once lost, we of this church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known. …” (CR, April 1944, p. 116.) And he stated that if the conspiracy “comes here it will probably come in its full vigor and there will be a lot of vacant places among those who guide and direct, not only this government, but also this Church of ours.” (CR, April 1952.)

Why the Hate?

2010-10-25T09:22:00.000-07:00

They Hate Our Guts
And they’re drunk on power.

November 1, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 07
by P.J. O'Rourke
Weekly Standards
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/they-hate-our-guts_511739.html

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid. Better to have a few cockeyed mutts running the dog pound than Michael Vick.

I take it back. Using the metaphor of Michael Vick for the Democratic party leadership implies they are people with a capacity for moral redemption who want to call good plays on the legislative gridiron. They aren’t. They don’t. The reason is simple. They hate our guts.

They don’t just hate our Republican, conservative, libertarian, strict constructionist, family values guts. They hate everybody’s guts. And they hate everybody who has any. Democrats hate men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, straights, the rich, the poor, and the middle class.

Democrats hate Democrats most of all. Witness the policies that Democrats have inflicted on their core constituencies, resulting in vile schools, lawless slums, economic stagnation, and social immobility. Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Whence all this hate? Is it the usual story of love gone wrong? Do Democrats have a mad infatuation with the political system, an unhealthy obsession with an idealized body politic? Do they dream of capturing and ravishing representational democracy? Are they crazed stalkers of our constitutional republic?

No. It’s worse than that. Democrats aren’t just dateless dweebs clambering upon the Statue of Liberty carrying a wilted bouquet and trying to cop a feel. Theirs is a different kind of love story. Power, not politics, is what the Democrats love. Politics is merely a way to power’s heart. When politics is the technique of seduction, good looks are unnecessary, good morals are unneeded, and good sense is a positive liability. Thus Democrats are the perfect Lotharios. And politics comes with that reliable boost for pathetic egos, a weapon: legal monopoly on force. If persuasion fails to win the day, coercion is always an option.

Armed with the panoply of lawmaking, these moonstruck fools for power go about in a jealous rage. They fear power’s charms may be lavished elsewhere, even for a moment.

Democrats hate success. Success could supply the funds for a power elopement. Fire up the Learjet. Flight plan: Grand Cayman. Democrats hate failure too. The true American loser laughs at legal monopoly on force. He’s got his own gun.

Democrats hate productivity, lest production be outsourced to someplace their beloved power can’t go. And Democrats also hate us none-too-productive drones in our cubicles or behind the counters of our service economy jobs. Tax us as hard as they will, we modest earners don’t generate enough government revenue to dress and adorn the power that Democrats worship.

Democrats hate stay-at-home spouses, no matter what gender or gender preference. Democratic advocacy for feminism, gay marriage, children’s rights, and “reproductive choice” is simply a way to invade -power’s little realm of domestic private life and bring it under the domination of Democrats.

Democrats hate immigrants. Immigrants can’t stay illegal because illegality puts immigrants outside the legal monopoly on force. But immigrants can’t become legal either. They’d prosper and vote Republican.

Democrats hate America being a world power because world power gives power to the nation instead of to Democrats.

And Democrats hate the military, of course. Soldiers set a bad example. Here are men and women who possess what, if they chose, could be complete control over power. Yet they treat power with honor and respect. Members of the armed forces fight not to seize power for themselves but to ensure that power can bestow its favors upon all Americans.

This is not an election on November 2. This is a restraining order. Power has been trapped, abused and exploited by Democrats. Go to the ballot box and put an end to this abusive relationship. And let’s not hear any nonsense about letting the Democrats off if they promise to get counseling.

P. J. O’Rourke, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, is the author of a new book, Don’t Vote: It Just Encourages the Bastards (Atlantic Monthly Press).

Stand Up For Freedom

2010-10-22T09:50:00.000-07:00

Need Furniture?

2010-10-11T11:27:00.000-07:00

Our favorite furniture store is closing its showroom. They are, however, going to sell online. Mike, the owner, is still working on his website, but below is the link and he has pictures of some of the furniture. This is purely selfish on our part as we don't want Mike to completely shut down -- so if you are thinking of buying furniture, check out Anara. And, no, we aren't getting a kickback for promoting his site. However, there is a nice distressed country-blue wardrobe at the showroom that would be perfect for our Utah home, in case anyone is wondering what to get us for Christmas.

http://www.anarahome.com/index.html

The Forgotten Man

2010-09-30T09:11:00.000-07:00

For Jeremy

2010-09-27T12:10:00.000-07:00

The following blog entry is for our friend, Jeremy, who asked us questions about our beliefs at a time that we were not able to give complete answers. Hopefully, this will explain what we wanted to say and will also provide material for future conversations:

************************************************

Our spirits are eternal. They existed before we came to earth and will continue to exist after we leave the earth. God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister. Because we are the spirit children of God, we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities.

Our Heavenly Father knew we could not progress beyond a certain point unless we left Him for a time. We needed to leave our premortal home to be tested and to gain experience. Our spirits needed to be clothed with physical bodies. We would need to leave our physical bodies at death and reunite with them in the Resurrection. Then we would receive immortal bodies like that of our Heavenly Father. If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our Heavenly Father has received.

Our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present His plan for our progression. We learned that He would provide an earth for us where we would prove ourselves. A veil would cover our memories, and we would forget our heavenly home. This would be necessary so we could exercise our agency to choose good or evil without being influenced by the memory of living with our Heavenly Father. Thus we could obey Him because of our faith in Him, not because of our knowledge or memory of Him. He would help us recognize the truth when we heard it again on earth.

He has chosen the time and place for each of us to be born so we can learn the lessons we personally need and do the most good with our individual talents and personalities.

At the Grand Council we also learned the purpose for our progression: to have a fulness of joy. However, we also learned that some would be deceived, choose other paths, and lose their way. We learned that all of us would have trials in our lives: sickness, disappointment, pain, sorrow, and death. But we understood that these would be given to us for our experience and our good. If we allowed them to, these trials would purify us rather than defeat us. They would teach us to have endurance, patience, and charity

At this council we also learned that because of our weakness, all of us except little children would sin. We learned that a Savior would be provided for us so we could overcome our sins and overcome death with resurrection.

When the plan for our salvation was presented to us in the premortal spirit world, we were so happy that we shouted for joy.

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?" Jesus Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me.”

Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give His life for us, and take upon Himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father’s commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”

Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us. Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation. Under his proposal, our purpose in coming to earth would have been frustrated.

After hearing both sons speak, Heavenly Father said, “I will send the first.”

Jesus Christ was chosen and foreordained to be our Savior. When Jesus lived on earth, He taught: “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. … And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day”(John 6:38, 40).

Because our Heavenly Father chose Jesus Christ to be our Savior, Satan became angry and rebelled. There was war in heaven. Satan and his followers fought against Jesus Christ and His followers. The Savior’s followers “overcame [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” (Revelation 12:11).

In this great rebellion, Satan and all the spirits who followed him were sent away from the presence of God and cast down from heaven. A third part of the hosts of heaven were punished for following Satan. They were denied the right to receive mortal bodies.

Because we are here on earth and have mortal bodies, we know that we chose to follow Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father. Satan and his followers are also on the earth, but as spirits. They have not forgotten who we are, and they are around us daily, tempting us and enticing us to do things that are not pleasing to our Heavenly Father. In our premortal life, we chose to follow Jesus Christ and accept God’s plan. That continues to be the choice for us while we are on earth. Will we choose Jesus, or will we choose Satan?

The right to choose between good and evil and to act for ourselves is called agency. In our premortal life we had moral agency. One purpose of earth life is to show what choices we will make. If we were forced to choose the right, we would not be able to show what we would choose for ourselves. Also, we are happier doing things when we have made our own choices.

Agency was one of the principal issues to arise in the premortal Council in Heaven. It was one of the main causes of the conflict between the followers of Christ and the followers of Satan.

Agency makes our life on earth a period of testing. Without the gift of agency, we would have been unable to show our Heavenly Father whether we would do all that He commanded us. Because we are able to choose, we are responsible for our actions.

We began to make choices as spirit children in our Heavenly Father’s presence. Our choices there made us worthy to come to earth. Our Heavenly Father wants us to grow in faith, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all other good things.

When we choose to live according to God’s plan for us, our agency is strengthened. Right choices increase our power to make more right choices.

We cannot choose righteousness unless the opposites of good and evil are placed before us.

God allows Satan to oppose the good.

When we follow the temptations of Satan, we limit our choices.

Even though we are free to choose our course of action, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions. The consequences, whether good or bad, follow as a natural result of any choice we make.

Heavenly Father has told us how to escape the captivity of Satan. We must watch and pray always, asking God to help us withstand the temptations of Satan. Our Heavenly Father will not allow us to be tempted beyond our power to resist.

God’s commandments direct us away from danger and toward eternal life.

Fundamentals of Our Constitutions

2010-09-21T13:44:00.000-07:00

Utah’s Constitution Day Celebration

Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah

September 17, 2010

“Fundamentals of Our Constitutions”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks

I feel very privileged to be invited to speak to this great audience on Constitution Day. I appreciate the University of Utah Hinckley Institute’s invitation and its sponsorship of this and other community events over the last 45 years.

I will speak about the written constitutions of the United States and its 50 states. As I give examples of various issues under these constitutions — matters on which respected public officials have taken controversial positions — please remember that I am not referring to the persons who hold the various offices under those constitutions. I am speaking of the “institution” of constitutional government. The principles I describe apply regardless of who holds the offices and regardless of party affiliation. Our loyalty is to the institution. If we oppose persons who hold particular offices or the policies they pursue, we are free to vote against them or work against their policies. But we should not carry our opposition to the point of opposing their offices, or we weaken the institution of constitutional government.

Some of the things said by various persons in recent public discourse cause me to urge that we be more careful in the way we throw around the idea that something is unconstitutional. A constitution should not be used as a weapon to end debate. A public policy or a proposed law that is unwise is not necessarily unconstitutional. Even if it is a stupid proposal, it is not necessarily unconstitutional. A constitution gives the people and their elected leaders the opportunity to make many decisions that are unwise or even reckless. When that happens — when the government or one of its officials engages in some kind of action that we consider to be wrong — we should engage in vigorous public debate about it. But we should not use up a constitution by attempting to strike down every ill-conceived act of government or to discredit every unwise official. A constitution is the ultimate weapon, and we preserve that weapon best by using it sparingly and carefully. If we call some action unconstitutional, we should be prepared to explain what provision or principle of a constitution it violates. In this way, a constitution can be used to stimulate discussion and to seek unity.

We should, of course, always be vigilant to insist that our governments and their executives, lawmakers and judges stay within the limits prescribed by our constitutions. That is part of the rule of law, and all of the blessings enjoyed under our constitutions are dependent upon it. President J. Reuben Clark, an honored authority on the Constitution, declared that “our allegiance run[s] to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals. All that we say about the Constitution and our reliance upon it depends upon the rule of law and not of the men or women who hold the offices under it.”[1]

There is need for public praise of our constitutions and their principles. A rising generation of influential opinion makers seems to place a lesser value on the United States Constitution. An example of that was related to me by a recent law graduate. In a panel discussion at the Harvard Law School, a professor of constitutional law criticized the United States Constitution in harsh terms. Another faculty panelist speculated that if his colleague’s criticisms were valid we might as well just take our written constitution and “roll it and smoke it.” That kind of disdain for our national constitution is more than concerning.

The United States Constitution is the oldest written national constitution still in use. It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and prosperity during the changing conditions of more than 200 years. Frequently copied, it has become the United States’ most important export. After two centuries, every nation in the world except six have adopted written constitutions,[2] and the United States Constitution was a model for all of them. Consequently, if we abandon or weaken its fundamental principles, we betray our own national ideals and we also weaken our global neighbors.

Now I will proceed to discuss four major fundamentals of the United States Constitution. In an earlier setting, under Church sponsorship, I referred to these fundamentals as the divinely inspired principles in the Constitution,[3] and I here affirm my belief that they are. But in this setting of a community program I will only refer to these as the great fundamental principles of our Constitution.

As I speak of these great fundamentals, I wish to take the long view. I do not wish to be understood as endorsing or condemning specific actions or proposals on current issues. I know that some will apply what I say — one way or another — to issues currently being reported in the media. But I do not seek to be heard for the short term. Drawing on over 50 years of observing a multitude of controversies over the application of constitutions, I am trying to describe fundamental principles that will be meaningful for decades to come. I leave to my listeners the task of agreeing or disagreeing with my description of the great fundamentals and — if they wish — trying to apply them to the very complex issues of this day and the different issues of the days to come.

I. Popular Sovereignty

I mention first what is probably the most important of the great fundamentals of the United States Constitution—the principle of popular sovereignty: The people are the source of government power; it is they who consented to a constitution that delegates certain powers to the government. I stress this fundamental by emphasizing what are not the sources of sovereign power. Sovereignty is not inherent in a state or nation just because it has the power that comes from force of arms. Sovereignty does not come from the divine right of a king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is forced to concede, as in the Magna Carta. And sovereignty does not rest in an aristocracy of self-appointed wise men who think that their high birth or prestigious education gives them the right to prescribe what is best for everyone else. Sovereignty is in the people as a whole, and their sovereignty is supreme, subject only to a few crucial limitations that I will discuss in a moment.

Sovereignty in the people necessarily implies responsibility in the people. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king, on a cabal of military leaders, or on some distant group of wise men, citizens who are sovereign must share a measure of the burdens and responsibilities of governing. I will say more of this later.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not originate the idea of popular sovereignty, since they lived in a century when persuasive philosophers had argued that political power originated in a social contract. But the United States Constitution provided the first national implementation of that principle.

After two centuries in which Americans may have taken popular sovereignty for granted, it is helpful to be reminded of the difficulties in that pioneering effort. A direct democracy was impractical for a country of four million people and about a half million square miles. As a result, the delegates had to design the structure of a constitutional, representative democracy, what they called “a Republican Form of Government.”[4] They also had to decide how minority rights could be protected when the government was, by definition, directed by a majority of the sovereign people. Part of that effort was to resolve whether a constitution adopted by popular sovereignty could be amended, and if so how.

The government of the United States had to be ultimately responsible to the will of the sovereign people, but it also had to be stable. Without stability against an aroused majority, government could not give individuals or minorities protection against overreaching by the ruling majority, a reality most evident when an outraged public calls for immediate punishment of one accused but not yet shown guilty of a crime. Government policies should not be tossed about with temporary swings in public opinion. The Constitution had to give government the power to withstand the cries of a majority of the sovereign people in the short run, but it had to be subject to their direction in the long run. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention achieved the required balance among popular sovereignty, stability, and protection of minorities through a power of amendment that was ultimately available but deliberately slow. It required the action of very large majorities — two-thirds in the Senate and the approval of three-fourths of the states.

II. Division of Powers in a Federal System

Another great fundamental of the United States Constitution is its federal system, which divides government powers between the nation and the various states. This principle of federalism is at the heart of our Constitution. Unlike the next two fundamentals I will discuss, which were adaptations of earlier developments in English law, this division of sovereignty between two government levels was unprecedented in theory or practice. In a day when it is fashionable to assume that the national government has the power and means to right every perceived injustice, we should remember that the United States Constitution limits the national government to the exercise of powers expressly granted to it. The Tenth Amendment provides:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”

This principle of limited national powers, with all residuary powers reserved to the people or to the state and local governments, which are most responsive to the people, is one of the great fundamentals of the United States Constitution.

In my lifetime I have seen much neglect of this fundamental constitutional principle. For example, the power to make laws on personal relationships is one of those powers not granted to the federal government and therefore reserved to the states. Thus, the ordinary laws governing marriage and family rights and duties are state laws, subject to the power of national law to govern the extent to which the law of one state is binding on others. The dominance of state law in these personal matters would have been changed by the Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.) proposed about 30 years ago. The dominance of state law will also be changed if, after full review, federal courts decree that a state law on marriage is invalid under the United States Constitution. Whatever the merits of current controversies over the laws of marriage and child adoption and the like, let us not forget that if the decisions of federal courts can override the actions of state lawmakers on this subject, we have suffered a significant constitutional reallocation of lawmaking power from the lawmaking branch to the judicial branch and from the states to the federal government.

III. Bill of Rights

A bill of rights, the third great fundamental of the United States Constitution, came by amendment, but I think almost all Americans look upon these first ten amendments as an essential part of the original Constitution.

The idea of a bill of rights was not new. Almost 600 years earlier, King John had been compelled to sign the Magna Carta, which contained a written guarantee of some rights for certain of his subjects. Later, the Magna Carta was relied upon by the English Parliament in guaranteeing additional rights against royal power in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. In the century that followed, many of the charters used in the establishment of the American colonies included some written guarantees of citizen liberties and privileges. And in the rush of constitution-making that followed the Continental Congress’s 1776 invitation, almost all of the 13 colonies developed these guarantees further. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were familiar with this history and made brilliant application of its principles in framing a Bill of Rights suited to the needs of the people of a new nation.

There are several supremely important guarantees in the Bill of Rights, including the freedoms of speech and press. I have chosen only one to discuss in detail.

The Bill of Rights begins with what many believe to be the most important guarantee in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to prevent a national church of the kind found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the direction that the United States shall have no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. For nearly a century this guarantee of religious freedom has been understood as a limitation on state as well as federal power.

The guarantee of the free exercise of religion, which I will call religious freedom, is one of the supremely important founding principles in the United States Constitution, and it is reflected in the constitutions of all of our 50 states. It is the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As noted by many, this “pre-eminent place” identifies freedom of religion as “a cornerstone of American democracy.”[5] I maintain that in our nation’s founding and in our constitutional order, religious freedom, and the freedoms of speech and press associated with it in the First Amendment, are the motivating and dominating civil liberties and civil rights.

The American colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, had come to this continent to be able to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation’s Bill of Rights. So it is that our national law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.”[6]

This principle was affirmed impressively 22 years ago when a group of prominent citizens assembled at Williamsburg, Virginia, and signed what was called the Williamsburg Charter. I was privileged to sign that charter in behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its stated purpose was to celebrate and reaffirm religious liberty as the foremost freedom in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Williamsburg Charter states:

“The First Amendment Religious Liberty provisions have both a logical and historical priority in the Bill of Rights. . . . In sum, as much if not more than any other single provision in the entire Constitution, the Religious Liberty provisions hold the key to American distinctiveness and American destiny.”[7]

The free “exercise” of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to “exercise” or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose religious principles compelled or justified stealing or taking human life.

The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom. The problems are not simple, and over the years the United States Supreme Court, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the meaning of the lofty and general provisions of the Constitution, has struggled to identify principles that can guide its decisions when government action is claimed to violate someone’s free exercise of religion. As would be expected, many of the battles over the extent of religious freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the practices of small groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Recent experiences suggest adding Muslims to the category of threatened religious minorities.

Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.

A recent book illustrates this danger. In Freedom From Religion, published by the Oxford University Press, a law professor makes this three-step argument:

1.In many nations “society is at risk from religious extremism.”[8]
2.“A follower is far more likely to act on the words of a religious authority figure than other speakers.”[9]
3.Therefore, “in some cases, society and government should view religious speech as inherently less protected than secular political speech because of its extraordinary ability to influence the listener.”[10]
He concludes:

“[W]e must begin to consider the possibility that religious speech can no longer hide behind the shield of freedom of expression. . . .[11]

“Contemporary religious extremism leaves decision-makers and the public alike with no choice but to re-contour constitutionally granted rights as they pertain to religion and speech.”[12]

I hope that those who might be persuaded by these arguments will consider how easy it would be over time to manipulate the definition of “religious extremism” to suppress any unpopular religion.

Religious belief and preaching must be protected against government action, even while the practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the Constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious preaching and action than to other kinds of speech and action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.

IV. Separation of Powers

The fourth great fundamental of the United States Constitution and of our state constitutions is the principle of separation of powers. This principle puts our national government on a significantly different foundation than the parliamentary systems of most western governments. The idea of separation of powers came out of the English experience, when parliament wrested certain powers from the king in the conflicts of the 1600s, thus achieving some separation of legislative and executive authority. But the United States Constitution carried this separation much further.

The concept of separating the executive, legislative, and judicial functions was established in the American colonies in the 1700s. A commentary on the Massachusetts Constitution of 1778, of which John Adams was a principal author, explained the basic principle.

“The legislative, judicial, and executive powers are to be lodged in different hands, that each branch is to be independent, and further, to be so balanced, and be able to exert such checks upon the others, as will preserve it from dependence on, or a union with them.”[13]

Thus, we often refer to the principle of separation of powers in terms of the checks and balances each branch exercises upon the others.

If the idea of checks and balances is to work properly, each branch of government must preserve its independence from the others. Moreover, the powers of each of these three branches must be exercised in a good faith effort to serve the interests of the public, rather than to dominate the others or to enhance the personal position of a particular official. Politics, revenge or personal gain must never be the primary driving force in the application of checks and balances.

For checks and balances to work properly, and for the fundamental principle of separation of powers to be honored and perform its proper function, each branch of government must fulfill its duties fully, and each must refrain from attempting to exercise the functions of the others. For example, Congress should perform its duty of making the laws and specifying the principles—even politically difficult principles—and not dodge this responsibility by delegating this function to regulations made by the executive branch. The courts must limit themselves to interpreting the Constitution and the laws and not stray into the legislative function of law-making. In contrast, we are all aware that in our day the actions of courts on major issues of public policy receive great attention in the media, and are frequently represented and understood as the actions of those who make laws rather than those who merely interpret them.

These are, of course, very broad assertions, and in practice these ideas are complex and controversial. I will attempt to express my thoughts about them without getting into too much technical legal jargon. If my remarks seem to deal excessively with the judicial branch and the conduct of judges, you will understand that I choose to elaborate on that subject because the judicial branch is the one with which I have had my greatest experience.

V. The Judicial Branch’s Role in Separation of Powers

There are two different views of the role of the judicial branch of government in our constitutional system. One maintains that the genius of the American system is its expectation that the courts will resolve very difficult and important questions that the legislative and executive branches of government have been unable to resolve. For example, it was the Supreme Court of the United States that compelled this nation to resolve the problem of racially segregated public schools, after many decades in which the nation’s elected lawmakers were unwilling to recognize this injustice or unable to resolve it. Other examples could be given. The important thing is that many believe the courts have a legitimate function in lawmaking when the problem is large and urgent enough and the legislative and executive branches have shown by inaction or ineffective action that they are unable to perform their functions to resolve it.

The opposite point of view argues that the courts should stay entirely out of the domain of legislative lawmaking, leaving this function to the popularly elected legislative bodies and the elected chief executives who presumably reflect the will of the people. A generation ago a prominent legal scholar described this position:

“Outside of a few important, well-defined personal liberties set forth in the document, the Constitution allows the people to make public policy through their elected representatives. When the Court ventures into policymaking in the guise of constitutional interpretation, it oversteps the role assigned to it under the Constitution.”[14]

The differences in these approaches will not be resolved. Both will be followed in their time, with the ebb and flow of judicial appointments, politics, and legal thought. But it is important to note that we currently have widespread public dissatisfaction on this subject. The 2006 Georgetown Conference on Judicial Independence considered a Princeton survey finding that 62% of Americans say the courts in their state are legislating from the bench rather than interpreting the law. This reveals a widespread public feeling that the courts are revising the moral and cultural life of the nation by making policy determinations that should be made by lawmakers in the elected branches.

Judicial Independence

What concerns us most about this widespread public dissatisfaction is that if not attended to it will threaten the independence the judicial branch must have to perform its function in our system of separation of powers. In the last few years, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has performed a great service by leading a series of conferences at Georgetown University on the state of the judiciary. They focused on this question of judicial independence.

As I have cheered these efforts from the sidelines, I have thought of how our system contrasts with that of the now defunct Soviet Union. During my years as president of BYU (1971–80), I hosted the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union, who was touring the United States in that Cold War period. In a private one-on-one discussion, I asked him how the Soviet system really worked in a highly visible criminal case, such as where a person was charged with an offense like treason or other crimes against the state. He explained that on those kinds of cases they had what they called “telephone justice.” Judges conducted the trial and heard the evidence and then went back to their chambers and had a phone call from a government or party official who told them how to decide the case.

I am grateful that, whatever difficulties we have in our system of justice — and there are many — we are still far away from what he called “telephone justice.” What stands between us and that corruption of the judicial system — what stands between us and the destruction of a vital check and balance in our system of separation of powers — is the independence of our state and federal judges.

I speak of state as well as federal judges because in most citizen encounters with the law state judges are by far the most important representatives of the judicial branch. I thought of that as I listened to our Utah Chief Justice, Christine M. Durham, speak to a group of lawyers last month.[15] She told them that in a recent year there were 384,000 cases filed in the federal courts, but the state courts had over 47 million. This is about 123 state court cases for every single case filed in the federal courts. She reminded her audience that “state courts are closer to everyday life where the legal meanings of such elemental concepts as birth and death and family take shape.” It is in the state courts where family law issues are adjudicated, where foreclosures take place, and where injured persons come to recover damages. When we speak of the importance of judicial independence, we must not neglect the important role of state courts as a co-equal branch of government.

Chief Justice Durham cited three troubling recent developments that put the judicial independence of state courts at risk. One of these she called “the politicization of state judiciaries.” This is the subject Justice O’Connor’s various conferences have pursued so persuasively with various recommendations, including judicial selection and tenure, judicial salaries, and limits on judicial campaign contributions.

As I give my strong endorsement of judicial independence, I am conscious that many in this audience will have observed or personally experienced court decisions with which they disagreed. I have also had that experience. In endorsing judicial independence, I do not approve every court decision it makes possible. What I advocate are the conditions necessary to preserve the institution of judicial independence, which is essential to the principle of separation of powers. We must defend judicial independence. We must not tolerate existing laws or support new laws that would make judges the servants of the legislative or executive branches or of any private interest.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that there are limits. Judicial independence does not mean that judges are free to decide controversies or cases according to their personal preferences.

Our constitutions and the acts of our legislative bodies are the paramount and most obvious examples of restraints upon judicial independence. In interpreting these and in applying the common law on subjects where there are no legislative enactments, judges are constrained by the precedents of prior judicial opinions. Less obvious, and subordinate to these restraints, are those elusive but very real community and personal standards of right and wrong that comprise what we might call the moral framework that defines what is workable or appropriate for persons living in an organized society. In total, these constraints should prevent a judge from having his or her personal interests take command of the decision-making process to augment personal power, property, prominence or prestige.

Judicial Activism

Unfortunately, the constraints I have described do not always hold judges within the limits imposed by our constitutional order. The label many put on judicial decisions that break free of these limits is judicial activism. It could just as well be called judicial arrogance. It has a variety of causes, including misinterpretation of the law and excessive reliance on personal predilections in the decision of cases. But neither of these should override the framework of the law, especially in those cases where the judicial branch should make no decision, but leave the matter to popularly elected lawmakers.

In criticizing judicial activism, I am not agreeing with those critics who define judicial activism as a circumstance where a judge makes the law rather than merely interprets it. That is an over-simplified definition. Our system of law clearly contemplates that judges will make law as well as interpret it. Appellate courts inevitably make law as they interpret legislative enactments that are ambiguous or contradictory. Judges make law by giving meaning to legislative language that is deliberately vague, such as laws using words like “fair” or “reasonable” or “obscene.” Appellate courts make law gradually on a case-by-base basis as they define and apply the common law, which consists of the decisions of courts on subjects not treated by the legislature. None of these lawmaking functions of judges is subject to criticism as judicial activism, because if the popularly elected lawmakers don’t like these judicial actions, they can change them by legislation.

In my opinion, the judicial lawmaking that has been legitimately criticized as judicial activism concerns the interpretation of state and federal constitutions. This kind of judicial action is not reversible by the popularly elected lawmakers, and cannot even be changed by the sovereign people except in those unusual circumstances in which a constitutional amendment is feasible. If such judicial action sets aside laws enacted or approved by a direct vote of the people, it offends two fundamentals: separation of powers and popular sovereignty.

Constitutional adjudication is the kind of activity that requires the highest exercise of the judicial talent and should cause the greatest soul-searching on the part of judges. On the one hand, the compelling traditions of common law adjudication show that the law — even constitutional law — can grow gradually to meet the problems and challenges of a new day. On the other hand, the overriding requirements of stability in the law forbid judges from using their office to enact their own personal preferences and moral framework in the way they could justifiably do as legislators. The question that should always be asked in constitutional adjudication is, “Is this a matter that the sovereign people in our democracy ought to decide through their popularly elected lawmakers, or is it a matter that our constitution clearly assigns to judges not directly accountable to the popular will?”

In the end, the only complete remedy for judicial activism is judicial restraint. Only judges can make judicial restraint a reality. The rarest kind of power in our troubled world is a power recognized but unexercised. Yet that is what the people have a right to expect from the judicial branch, which must define the limits of all government branches, including its own. I maintain that the same branch of government that has defined the power and forged the tools of judicial activism should decline to exercise them.

VI. Citizen Responsibilities

I conclude with some suggestions about our responsibilities as citizens. We have a great Constitution whose fundamental principles many believe to be divinely inspired. Therefore what? I will suggest five responsibilities that I believe are appropriate for all citizens—whatever their religious or philosophical persuasion.

1.Understand the Constitution
All citizens should be familiar with its great fundamentals: the sovereignty of the people, the structure of federalism that divides powers between the state and the federal government, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, and the principle of separation of powers among the various branches of government. We should take alarm at and consider how to oppose any action that would infringe these fundamentals.

2.Support the Law
All citizens should give law-abiding support to their national, state, and local governments. My religious faith expresses this principle in an official declaration of belief:

“We 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. . . .

“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside” (D&C 134:1, 5).

3.Practice Civic Virtue
Those who enjoy the blessings of liberty under our national and state constitutions should promote morality, and they should practice what the Founding Fathers called “civic virtue.” John Adams, the second president of the United States, declared, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[16]

James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that “republican government presupposes the exercise of these qualities [of virtue] in a higher degree than any other form.”[17]

Citizens should also be practitioners of civic virtue in their conduct toward our states and our nation. They should obey the laws. They should be ever willing to fulfill the duties of citizenship. This includes compulsory duties like military service and the numerous voluntary actions they must take if they are to preserve the principle of limited government through citizen self-reliance. For example, since U.S. citizens value the right of trial by jury, they must be willing to serve on juries, even those involving unsavory subject matter.

Then there is the matter of voting. I have been alarmed at the steady decline of voter turnout in many parts of the United States, including Utah. Voting is a fundamental right and responsibility that must not be taken for granted. Political participation can be inconvenient. It requires sacrifices of time and resources, but it is essential to our democratic society. Without substantial voter turnout, the people abrogate the great fundamental of popular sovereignty.

It is also part of civic virtue to be moral in our conduct toward all people. We believe with the author of Proverbs that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). The personal righteousness of citizens will strengthen a nation more than the force of its arms.

4.Maintain Civility in Political Discourse
If representative government is to function effectively under our constitutions, we must have civility in political discourse. We currently have an excess of ugliness and contentiousness in our communications on many political issues. I don’t need to give examples; we have all been exposed to it, and some of us have occasionally been part of it. We all bear some responsibility for the current political polarization and the stalemates that have resulted from it. We ought to tone it down. Meaningful debate and discussion about policies, programs, and procedures is essential to a democratic society. But contentiousness for the sake of division is bad for democracy. It is bad for law observance. It is bad for neighborly relations. And it is particularly destructive as an example for the rising generation, who, if not taught better, will perpetuate and magnify its ugliness and divisiveness for generations to come.

A year ago our Church published a statement called “The Mormon Ethic of Civility.” I quote from that statement:

“The Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that renders civil discussion impossible. . . . Our democratic system [should] facilitate kinder and more reasoned exchanges among fellow Americans than we are now seeing.”[18]

Our President, Thomas S. Monson, has said, “When a spirit of goodwill prompts our thinking and when unified effort goes to work on a common problem, the results can be most gratifying.”[19]

5.Promote Patriotism
Finally, the single word that best describes a fulfillment of the responsibilities of citizenship is patriotism. Citizens should be patriotic. My favorite prescription for patriotism is that of Adlai Stevenson, the Illinois governor who was twice the Democratic candidate for President:

“What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? . . . A patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”[20]

Conclusion

I close with a poetic prayer. It is familiar to most Americans because we sing it in one of our loveliest hymns. It expresses gratitude to God for liberty, and it voices a prayer for continued blessings:

Our fathers’ God, to thee,

Author of liberty,

To thee we sing;

Long may our land be bright

With freedom’s holy light.

Protect us by thy might,

Great God, our King! [21]

[1] J. Reuben Clark: Selected Papers on Religion, Education, and Youth, ed. David H. Yarn, Jr., Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1984, p. 43.

[2] See A. E. Dick Howard, “Making It Work,” Wilson Quarterly, Spring 1987, pp. 122, 126.

[3] See “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, February 1992, 68-74.

[4] U.S. Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 4.

[5] Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad to the Secretary of State and to the President of the United States, May 17, 1999, p. 6.

[6] 22 USC 6401(a).

[7] The Williamsburg Charter, pp. 11-12. The text of the Williamsburg Charter is reproduced in the appendix (pp. 127-45) of Articles of Peace, the Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy (James Davison Hunter and Os Guinness, eds., Brookings Books, Washington, D.C., 1990).

[8] Amos N. Guiora, Freedom From Religion (Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 27.

[9] Ibid., at p. 30.

[10] Ibid., at p. 31.

[11] Ibid., at p. 31.

[12] Ibid., at p. 39.

[13] Quoted in Gerhard Casper, “Constitutionalism,” Occasional Papers from the Law School, The University of Chicago, no. 22 (1987).

[14] Michael W. McConnell, “Four Faces of Conservative Legal Thought,” University of Chicago Law School Record, Spring 1988, 12, 13.

[15] “State Courts and Justice for All,” BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School Founders Day Dinner, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 26, 2010.

[16] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. C. F. Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.

[17] Federalist No. 55, February 13, 1788.

[18] ”The Mormon Ethic of Civility,” October 16, 2009 (see http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/ commentary/the-mormon-ethic-of-civility).

[19] Ibid.

[20] Adlai Stevenson, speech given in New York City, 27 August 1952, quoted in John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1955, p. 986.

[21] Hymns, no. 339.

Today is Constitution Day

2010-09-17T12:26:00.000-07:00

The following article was written by Chip Wood and published on September 17, 2010, on the Personal Liberty Digest website.

Do You Really Know The Constitution?
September 17, 2010 by Chip Wood

Today is Constitution Day — a day specifically designated by an Act of Congress when Americans are supposed to honor the remarkable document that created our system of government. The date was chosen because the Constitution was approved at the original Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787.

The act that created Constitution Day mandates that all publicly-funded educational institutions provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day. Let’s see how well the schools have done their job.

Ask a recent high school or college graduate to take the following brief quiz. I’ll be interested to hear how many of the 20 questions he or she answers correctly.

And be sure to take the quiz yourself. Even if you score 100 percent, it’s good to be reminded of some of the fundamental principles upon which our country was founded. The quiz was compiled by an old friend, John McManus, who is president of the John Birch Society. Thanks, John, for permission to share this with my readers today.

1. Has the Constitution always guided our country?

2. What are the three branches of government named in the Constitution?

3. Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make law?

4. Does the Constitution empower the President to make law?

5. Does the Constitution give the Federal government any power in the field of education?

6. Where in the Constitution is there authorization to dispense foreign aid?

7. Did the Constitution give the Federal government power to create a bank?

8. Can the provisions of a treaty supersede the Constitution?

9. Does the Constitution allow a President to take the nation into war?

10. Can you name any of the four crimes mentioned in the Constitution?

11. Should the Bill of Rights be considered part of the original Constitution?

12. According to the Constitution, how can a President and other national officers be removed from office?

13. How many amendments have been added to the Constitution?

14. How is an amendment added to the Constitution?

15. Does the Constitution say anything about illegal immigration?

16. Is the term of a President limited by the Constitution?

17. Which part of the Federal government holds “the power of the purse”?

18. Does the Constitution provide a method for expelling a member of Congress?

19. How many times is the word “democracy” mentioned in the Constitution?

20. Does the Bill of Rights grant the people free speech, freedom of the press, the right to possess a weapon, etc?

It wasn’t as easy as you thought it would be, was it? Here are the answers, also as provided by McManus.

1. No. Originally the nation functioned under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. Eleven years after the Declaration of Independence the Constitution was written, agreed to and sent to the states for ratification. When ratified by nine states (as the document itself prescribed), the Constitution was declared to be the new governmental system. That occurred on Sept. 13, 1788. The new government was ordered to be convened on March 4, 1789.
2. Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

3. No. The very first sentence in the Constitution states: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States….” Any Supreme Court decision is the law of the case that binds only the plaintiff and the defendant. The meaning of the word “all” has not been changed.

4. No. Executive Orders issued by the President that bind the entire nation are illicit because, as noted above, “All legislative powers” are possessed by Congress. An Executive Order that binds only the employees of the Federal government (such as granting a holiday) is proper because the President should be considered to be the holder of power much like that possessed by the CEO of a company. But the entire nation is not in the employ of the President.
The President does have a role in lawmaking with his possession of a veto. He can veto a measure approved by Congress (which can be overturned by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress), or simply allow it to become law by doing nothing within 10 days, “Sundays excepted.”

5. No. The Constitution contains no mention of any power “herein granted” in the field of education.

6. No such authorization appears in the Constitution.

7. No. Congress was granted power to “coin money,” meaning it was to have the right to create a mint where precious metal could be stamped into coinage of fixed size, weight and purity. There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have created the Federal Reserve.

8. Absolutely not. Thomas Jefferson responded to those who consider treaty-making power to be “boundless” by stating, “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

9. It does not. The sole power to declare the nation at war is possessed by Congress. Congress last used this power at the beginning of World War II, when war was declared on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. (Germany declared war on the U.S. the next day.) A congressional vote to authorize the President to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions should never be considered a substitute for a formal declaration of war.

10. The four crimes mentioned are: Treason, bribery, piracy and counterfeiting.

11. Many do hold that view because if the promise to add a Bill of Rights had not been made during the ratification process, some states would not have ratified the Constitution.

12. The President and other high officers of the Federal government can be impeached by a majority in the House and tried by the Senate. Impeachment does not constitute removal; it should be considered the equivalent of an indictment that must be followed by a trial. Two-thirds of the Senators “present” must approve removal at the subsequent trial to effect removal.
13. There are 27. The first 10 (the Bill of Rights) can be considered part of the original Constitution. Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21. This means that, in 223 years, only 15 other amendments have been added. The process was deliberately made difficult to keep anything dangerous or silly from being added to the Constitution in the heat of passion.

14. Congress can propose an amendment when two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to do so. Any proposed amendment must then by ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the States. Amendments can also be proposed by a Federal Constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the States. Any amendment arising from a Constitutional convention must also be ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the states.

15. Not directly. But Article IV, Section 4 assigns to the Federal government the duty “to protect each of them [the States] from invasion.” It does not specify that the invasion must be military. When 12 million people enter our nation illegally, it is an invasion that should be repelled by the Federal government.

16. Yes. In 1951, Amendment 22 was added to the Constitution to limit any President to two terms. The only President who served longer than two terms was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who held office during a fourth four-year term. He died in April 1945 shortly after beginning his 13th year in office.

17. The House of Representatives. Article I, Section 7 states: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….” If a majority in the House (218 of its 435 members) refuses to originate a bill to raise revenue for something, then no funds can be spent on that activity.

18. Two-thirds of each House has the authority to expel any of its members for cause even though the member has been elected by voters.

19. The word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution. Our nation is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The Founders feared Democracy (unrestricted rule by majority) and favored a Republic (rule of law where the law limits the government). James Madison wrote: “…. Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

20. No. The Declaration of Independence, which provides the philosophical base of our nation, states very clearly that our rights are granted to us by our Creator. The various rights noted in the Bill of Rights were not granted by government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal government from suspending any of those God-given rights, including the right to possess a weapon. Those who claim “Second Amendment rights,” for instance, make a big mistake with such a statement. If the right is granted by the Second Amendment, meaning by government, it can be taken away by government. If the right is granted by God, only He can take it away.

While every politician pays lip service to the Constitution (the President, Vice President, and every member of Congress take an oath to “preserve and protect” it), the sad truth is that vast majority of actions taken by the Federal government are not authorized by the Constitution.

I have heard it said that, if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced today, the Federal government would be 20 percent of its present size and would cost 20 percent of its present budget. I think those numbers are an exaggeration; I suspect the truth would be closer to 10 percent.

Just imagine: No foreign aid, no Departments of Education, Housing, Health, Agriculture or Homeland Security. No commissions, bureaucratic monstrosities or other meddlesome agencies that “harass our people and eat out their substance.” (That’s an actual indictment of King George from the Declaration of Independence.)

What would this country be like if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced? I hope some day we’ll find out.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

— Chip Wood

Learning History so We Can Change Our Future

2010-09-14T12:43:00.000-07:00

The following article was written by Charlotte Cushman and published on September 12 on the American Thinker website.

Life Under Communism
By Charlotte Cushman

I am worried because too many people, especially our youth, don't even have a clue as to what living under a totalitarian regime is like. Here is my story, how I learned about the evils of government domination and became the patriotic freedom-fighter that I am today.

I am a descendant of immigrants from Yugoslavia. They immigrated to the United States around 1900. As a young child, I took it for granted that my grandmother and mother spoke in a different language when they got together. I took it for granted that we ate different food at Grandma's house such as potica, blood sausage, sallata, and homemade noodles. It was when I was five years old that something happened to make me painfully aware that something was, indeed, very different about my family.

At that time, my mother disappeared for a while. I didn't really understand where she was, but when she came back, she brought a stranger with her, a stranger to live in our home. His name was France. He was my mom's cousin, and he lived with us for about a year. He was very nice and a lot of fun, but he was very nervous. He was nervous all the time. When we would go out in the car he would constantly be looking around, smoking a cigarette, with hands shaking, glancing continuously at the cars behind us or next to us. He would say things like, "They are after me." "They have followed me here." "They're going to get me."

There were other things peculiar about him, also. He ate fast, and one day he filled up a table top with stacks of food and my brother took a picture of it. France laughed and said he was going to send this picture to Tito. "Who is Tito?" I wondered. "And why does France want him to know that he has all this food?"

Then he started talking about his life in Yugoslavia. He said his family used to live on a beautiful farm, but the government took it away from them. He said the Communists controlled everyone and everything. They couldn't even cut a tree down on their own property for firewood. He was afraid to walk from the house to the barn for fear of being shot. You had to be careful of everything you said because if you said something against the government, you put your life at risk. France's brother, August, did speak out and was pushed in front of a train and his legs were cut off. The Communists called it an "accident." August survived and went to the hospital, where he was poisoned -- another "accident." We had a collie dog that I loved. One day I was hugging the dog and France told me that people couldn't have dogs in Yugoslavia because they couldn't afford them. He said people would stand around eating with both hands up to their mouth for fear of dropping crumbs on the floor -- they couldn't afford to drop any food because they didn't have enough to eat. He told me that the Communists brainwashed the citizens with propaganda and changed the history of their country. I couldn't believe it. "How could they get by with that?" I thought.

He told me that leaving his country, his home, was very difficult. I later learned that he had had a girlfriend in Yugoslavia, and when he left with my mother, she fell on the ground, sobbing, "I know I'll never see you again."

But here is the scariest thing he told me. "It is coming here, Char," he said. "It is coming here." Needless to say, that terrified me.

At Grandma's house, there was a lot of talk about Yugoslavia, but she didn't tell me all the horrors of living under Communism like France did. All I heard was that they missed their farm and how beautiful it was, but that the government owned it now. There was always a cloud of extreme sadness around this subject. Also, Grandma and Freddie would send money to Yugoslavia because the family that remained there had no money.

France had a sister named Mimi. When she was twenty-nine, she left Yugoslavia. Here is her story:

"My parents and grandparents were farmers. They used a horse in the fields. They lived in the same house. The roof on their home was made of straw. It didn't leak, and animals and insects did not live in it. A man came to fix the roof once every ten years. Inside the house there were two bedrooms, one pantry, and one large living and cooking area.

"My mother was a happy person. She was sick in bed for ten years with multiple sclerosis and died at age forty-five. My father was a happy man and died of a heart attack. My grandmother was a tough lady, serious, and died old. My grandfather drank. He went back and forth from the U.S. to Yugoslavia. He would go to Yugoslavia, sell part of the farm, and go back to the U.S. He died in the U.S. and died old. My brother, Carl, worked in the mines. He developed a disease in the lungs where if they took it out he would die and if they left it in he would die. My brother, August, was murdered by the Communists, and Albina, my sister, stayed in Yugoslavia.

"Life under communism was very hard. Oh, how the people suffered! On the farm in Ljubljana, my family got up at 4 AM and worked until 10 PM, and the government took everything. When I decided that I would leave, I took my shoes to a shoemaker and asked him to cut a hole in the bottom (here I put my American money that relatives had sent me), then the shoemaker covered the hole with another sole. I did not want to be caught with money because then people would know I was going to leave, and this would be very dangerous. This was my idea to do this. I kept the shoes dirty and muddy. When I left Yugoslavia I put what few possessions I had in a bag and left without saying goodbye to my father. I did that because if the Communists asked him where I was, he could honestly tell the truth and say he didn't know.

"I wore black as a disguise. People only wore black if there was a death in their family and since our family had had no deaths, the guards in Ljubljana would not suspect who I was. There were guards everywhere. From Ljubljana I walked to Maribor. There I gave a farmer some money and he told me which way to go to get out of the country. He told me which way through the mountains, and then I had to go through a river. The first time I tried it, it was too dangerous, so I came back. The second time I was successful. I went through the mountains, through the river, changed my clothes, waited until the changing of the guards at noon, and walked through."

We told her that must have taken a lot of courage. Wasn't she scared? Did she ever think that she could be killed?

"No, I never thought of dying because I had no life where I was, so how could anything be any worse?"

We asked her, Wasn't it hard to leave all her things?

"I had no possessions, just two outfits, so no, it was not hard.

"When I crossed the border, I went to Graz. (I chose Austria because it was quicker to get to America from there; in Italy, one had to wait two to three years.) In Austria, I had to stay in a camp until I could get permission to go to America. I was in a camp three months and did a lot of work. I wrote to the neighbors of my family and told them that I was in Austria and was flying to America. I told the people in the camp that I had left Yugoslavia for a better life. As it ended up, I could not go to the U.S. because their quota of immigrants was full, so I had to go to Montreal, Canada. Before I left Austria I kept reminding the man that I had worked for to bring me my shoes, that the ones I had were uncomfortable. Right before I left he brought me the muddy, dirty shoes.

"When I opened my bank account in Canada the teller asked me, 'Where did you get this money' [because it was so flat and musty]? I told him that someone gave it to me; I did not tell him that the money had been in my shoes."

Life, if you can call it that, under Communism was miserable -- so miserable, they would do anything to get out. Have you ever wondered why immigrants from all over the world wanted to come to the United States? Do you know why our country was once known as the melting pot?

The answer is that our country was originally founded on the principle of individual rights. The Founding Fathers thought that each person had inalienable rights. These were the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to pursue one's own happiness, and the right to property (to earn and keep what you work for). That meant that if a family owned a farm, they had a right to keep what they worked for on that farm. They could criticize the government and not live in fear of being shot at or being pushed in front of a train. It meant that they could live the way they wanted without government interference, could freely trade with each other and make money. They could decide how they wanted to live and could live that way as long as they respected the rights of others.

The amazing thing was that the government in the United States protected its citizens instead of seeking to control them. This was the first time in the history of the earth that a country had been founded on the principle that man had rights and that the purpose of the government was to protect these rights rather than to trample on them.

So how could France say Communism would come to America? Well, as the old saying goes, history repeats itself, and he could see when he arrived here that the United States had already put into place laws and regulations that his own country had done. Those laws pave the way for Communism. If he were alive today, what do you think France would have to say about the concept of political correctness? I know what he would say. He'd say that's how they take steps to take your freedom of speech away and control your mind. What do you think he'd say about a government that takes over banks and car companies? He would say that is no different from when they took over his farm. What do you think he'd say about the government taking over your health care? I know what he would say. He would say Americans are fools.

So here I am, an adult, watching France's prediction come true. How can this happen here in America? The reason is that over time, the concept of rights has been corrupted. "Rights" has now come to mean "wants." You want an education? Or food? Or health care? Or a car? A cell phone? No problem, it will be provided. But who will be providing it? The taxpayers -- you and me. And when we are forced to pay for someone else's wants, we become slaves. It is no different from my ancestors on the farm in Yugoslavia.

It was when I read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand that the pieces fell into place for me and I began to understand that the concept of individual rights has been corrupted by the belief that we need to live our lives for others rather than ourselves.

My ancestors were immigrants, and just like a lot of immigrants, they came to America for a better life. But a lot of immigrants came to America for a better life, so I learned as an adult that they really weren't that different after all. But to a five-year-old child, the impressions of seeing a grown man shake and sweat with fear while simply riding down the street in a car left a lifelong impression on me.

I think about Mimi when she said, "Oh, how people suffered!" I think about France on his deathbed, when he was dying of cancer, and I think that I, for one, will not give up my country without a fight. We owe it to them, to what they struggled for, and most of all, to ourselves. I credit France for my riveted commitment to capitalism, to freedom, today. It is because of what he taught me about freedom that I won't give it up. You see, when people talk about their heritage, they can either make it their own or they can walk away from it. And I, for one, will never walk away from mine.

The War in Heaven Continues

2010-09-13T13:49:00.001-07:00

101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates

2010-09-03T09:56:00.000-07:00

101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates

W. Cleon Skousen. 101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates. 1980.
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/w-cleon-skousen/101-constitutional-questions-to-ask-candidates

Because so many millions of Americans finally realize that something is seriously wrong with the way the government is handling our affairs, people are continually asking: “Do you think there is still time to turn it around?”

When you ask, “Still time before what?” they usually reply: “Before total disaster overtakes.”
For those who wonder about such things the answer is this: “Yes, there is still time, but not much.”

The next question is: “What can we do to get America turned around and regain our national sanity?”

The answer is: “Elect a President and a majority in Congress who still believe in the Constitution and will fight to return America to her original moorings.”

Identifying Constitutional Candidates

“But how can you tell when a candidate for political office is really a Constitutionalist?”

If the candidate is already in office he will have a voting record which will clearly show whether or not he is a Constitutionalist. Several organizations monitor the Congress and publish the results.

However, if the candidate is a newcomer to politics you will have to test his knowledge of Constitutional principles by asking a few questions.

What Kind of Questions Should Be Asked?

We are listing a few of the many questions which might be addressed to a candidate in order to determine whether or not he stands for those basic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers.

No American should run for public office until he has studied the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Questions on General Principles

1. Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?
The founders said it is in the people “by God’s own allowance”. No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people’s representatives.

2. In what ways are “all men created equal?”
All humanity are equal in three ways: 1. equal before God, 2. equal before the law, 3. equal in their rights. In all other respects people are different.

3. What is an inalienable right?
An inalienable right is one which comes as an “endowment from the Creator” and cannot be violated without coming under the judgment of God.

4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?
The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5. What did the founders mean by the “pursuit of happiness?”
This is a collective phrase designed to cover all of the other inalienable rights.

6. Give an example of an inalienable right which is essential to the pursuit of happiness.
The Founders believed, for example, that human happiness requires that each of us enjoy the right to acquire, develop and dispose of property. They believed that without the protection of property rights, all other rights are placed in serious jeopardy.

7. What are some of the other inalienable rights?
The inalienable rights of mankind include such things as the right of self government; the right of human beings to beget their own kind; the right of parents to rear their children free from outside interference (unless there is criminal abuse or neglect); the right to freedom of belief; the right to freedom of speech; the right to assemble; the right to petition; the right to change residence; the’ right to change jobs, etc.

8. What is the purpose of government?
The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide “liberty under law,” which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty. and well-being of the people.

The American Structure of Government

9. What is a democracy?
A democracy is a government wherein decisions are made by the masses of the people rather than by elected representatives.

10. What is a republic?
A republic is a system in which the laws are passed and decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.

11. Why did Jefferson call the American system a democratic-republic?
Because the system allows the masses of qualified voters to participate in the election of their officials (democracy) and then the people’s elected representatives enact the laws and administer the affairs of the people under majority rule but with the equal protection of individual rights (a republic).

12. Is it a mistake, therefore, to call the United States a democracy?
Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from “democracy” is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people’s elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over “pure democracy” would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.

The Task of Controlling Power

13. Why is separation of power safer than concentration of power?
Government is “force” which Washington compared to “fire” and said government is a “dangerous servant” and a “fearful master.” Power should be dispersed among the people where they can keep it under control.

14. How should the powers of government be separated?
First of all the Founders wanted political power separated vertically. They considered the principal power base of society to be the family. However, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (police, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated to the community. Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to the higher level of the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the State level. The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders’ pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all. 1

15. What remedies did the Founders provide if government officials violated the channel of power assigned to them?
Administrative pressures from other departments are provided and if his offenses are serious he can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.

16. Why did the Founders want the powers of government to flow from the bottom up rather than the top down?
Jefferson stated that a political unit governs best which governs least. In other words, the services which the people need from government are relatively simple and when circumstances are normal the people like to conduct their affairs with as little interference from the government as possible. Consequently, in the Founders’ original plan for a happy and prosperous society, the functions of government were designed to be relatively simple and remarkably cheap.

17. Then why do we have such a complicated and expensive government today?
The professional politicians learned that in a war, depression, or a serious crisis, the people will endure higher taxes and a far greater concentration of authority on the higher levels of government. Certain politicians therefore set out to exploit every emergency as an excuse for the acquiring of more power. During most of the twentieth century ambitious politicians trumpeted the message that the government can solve practically all problems better than the people. Today, as a result, Americans are being literally “programmed” to death. And taxes have skyrocketed.

Separating Power Horizontally

18. How did the Founders separate power horizontally?
There are three functions of government at each level of society. One function is to make the law, another is to administer the law and a third is to interpret the law. These are all on the same horizontal level and are referred to as the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. The Founders wanted these three functions to be separated into equal, independent departments. At the same time, they wanted to coordinate these functions so that one department could not function without the other two. Each department was therefore assigned to serve as a check on the others. The idea of the Founders was to have these functions of government “coordinated but never consolidated.” This was one of the most ingenious devices contributed by the Founders.

19. What happens if the separation of powers breaks down either vertically or horizontally?
The Founders warned that if the vertical separation of power should ever break down so that all power began to be concentrated in Washington, there would be a severely arrogant abuse of the people by government officials. They also said that if the legislative executive and judicial departments failed to act as a check on each other, there would be tyranny and the people would lose their freedom. For more than one full generation this is what has been happening.
Americans Experiment with Another System

20. Is the consolidation of government functions the trend today?
Yes. Consolidation of power is gravitating toward Washington at a pace which would have greatly alarmed the Founders.

21. What has caused this?
Beginning around 1900 certain wealthy influential groups lost confidence in the original American system and began propagandizing the people into believing that a “redistribution of the wealth” by the government would greatly improve the American life style. This theory of economics with its concentration of political power at the center of government is usually referred to as socialism. Samuel Adams vigorously warned against these principles. He said socialism violates equal protection of rights and completely destroys the concept of limited government. In fact, he said the Founders had done everything possible to make these collectivist policies “unconstitutional.”

22. What has been the result?
These policies launched the United States on a wild and dizzy trajectory which has resulted in run-away inflation; a huge burden of national debt; taxes which are devouring nearly half of the peoples’ earning power; a serious invasion of individual rights; and a virtual collapse of states rights.

23. Has socialism or “collectivism” worked anywhere in the world?
Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as Communism, Nazism, and Fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called “peaceful” forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proven counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor’s edge of perpetual bankruptcy. Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.

24. How did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?
They did it by setting up a “limited” form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the “chains” of the Constitution.

American Leaders Began to Abandon the Founders Success Formula

25. Does this mean Theodore Roosevelt was in error when he said the President could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids?
Yes, he was turning the Constitution upside down. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as “usurpation.”

26. Was President Woodrow Wilson also in error when he said the United States should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world?
Yes. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the United States should try to be friendly with all nations, but beholden to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war.

27. Was Franklin D. Roosevelt in error when he structured the New Deal?
Yes. The New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was “tax, tax — spend, spend — elect, elect!”

28. Was Lyndon Johnson in error when he said, “We will take from the haves and give to the have nots!”
The Founders would certainly have called it an error. There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to “soak the rich,” but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes.

29. Was President Nixon in error when he continually tried to involve the United States in a “New World Order”?
Yes. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations.

30. Was President Carter in error when he began meddling in domestic affairs of foreign nations?
Yes. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the United States would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any President or Secretary of State who has followed a policy of “interventionism,” has operated outside of his Constitutional authority.

Presidential Violations of the Constitution

31. What about executive orders which are treated as laws after being published in the federal register?
In the eyes of the Founders these would be considered unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision but he has no authority whatever to make “laws” for the people since the Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure.

32. What about executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign governments?
This procedure is also unconstitutional. The Founders provided that all agreements with foreign nations must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Since American Presidents began holding summit conferences with the heads of foreign governments, they have been entering into secret engagements which very often never see the light of day let alone receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Each year there are many more executive agreements signed by the President than there are treaties ratified by the Senate.

Judicial Violations of the Constitution

33. What about new laws laid down by the Supreme Court?
This is called “judicial legislation.” This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court.

34. How is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the Constitution?
The Founders made it very clear that the Supreme Court would be violating its assignment if it substituted its own opinions for that of the Founders. Until recently it has always been an established principle that the Constitution must be interpreted the way the Founders intended it and not according to the whims or caprice of modern justices.

35. Is there any way to curb the Supreme Court from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner?
Yes. A Judicial Reform Amendment would allow any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. A decision could also be overturned by concurring resolutions from three-fourths of the State Legislatures. Had this procedure been available the States would have’ undoubtedly outlawed forced busing of school children at least twenty years ago.

Unconstitutional Edicts of Regulatory Agencies

36. Is it Constitutional for an agency of the Federal Government to write rules and regulations which are enforced in the courts as “laws?”
No. This is a recent development in governmental procedures. It is called “administrative law.” The Founders provided no power in any agency of government to make laws except the Congress.

Blurring the Founders’ Division of Labor Between the States and the Federal Government

37. How did the Founders intend to divide the problem-solving powers between the States and the Federal Government?
James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, No. 45. He wrote: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined…. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

38. How did the Founders know whether to assign a problem to the State or Federal Governments?
If a problem involved foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes on the high seas, navigable waters, naturalization, etc.) it went to the Federal Government. All other powers were retained by the States.

39. How many areas of power were ultimately assigned to the Federal Government?
The Constitution gives the Federal Government twenty powers. These are set forth in Article I, Section 8.

40. What if the Federal Government thinks it needs more power?
The government cannot legally exercise any powers except those which are specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The only way Washington can get any additional legitimate power is by an amendment.

41. Where does it say that the Federal Government is specifically restricted from exercising any power not granted to it by the States?
The Tenth Amendment

42. Then how did the government get so much power?
The dominating arrogance of the Federal Government today came about primarily through three channels: 1. outright usurpation of power, 2. an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, and 3. distorting the Commerce Clause as the means of shattering the restrictive chains of the Constitution and expanding Federal jurisdiction into hundreds of areas never intended by the Founders.

Subverting Two Important Constitutional Clauses

43. What was the Butler Case?
In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the “general welfare” of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.

44. In what way has the Commerce Clause been distorted to give the Federal Government unconstitutional powers?
This clause was simply designed to give the Federal Government sufficient power to insure the “free flow” of commerce so that the States would not interfere with inter-state shipments as they had done in the past. Since 1936 the original intent of the Founders has been expanded to include Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court), has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation.

Some Practical Questions
45. Doesn’t the more complex nature of modern society require a far more extensive control of the economy by the Federal Government?
No. The more complex society becomes the more it needs the automatic problem-solving devices of a free-market economy operating with the least possible interference from government. As Adam Smith pointed out, government interference only adds to the complexity of the system and results in a serious deterioration of individual freedom.

46. What is a modern example of the Founders’ original success formula solving some of the highly complex problems of a modern society?
No nation could have had a much more complex situation than West Germany right after World War II. Every major city in Germany was bomb-gutted and the people were surviving in basements and make-shift hovels. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany took over in 1949 and immediately initiated the basic economic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers. By using freedom instead of heavy-handed government regulations, West Germany achieved the highest standard of living in Western Europe within eight years. The West Germans were not only fully employed but importing foreign labor besides. Clothing, food and housing were abundant and cheap. West Germany became so prosperous she was the envy of socialized Sweden. It will be recalled that Sweden wasn’t even in the war and had boasted of the superiority of her socialist controls. However, in Sweden a young married. couple has to wait ten years to get a one-room apartment because of the government monopoly over housing. It was obvious West Germany had chosen a better way.

Questions About Money and the Budget

47. What happened to the Federal budget after the “Butler” case?
In 1936 (the year of the Butler case) the Federal budget was around six billion dollars. By 1980 the looting of the American taxpayer had pushed the Federal budget to more than six hundred billion dollars!

48. Is it Constitutional for the government to spend more money that it takes in?
Yes. The Constitution allows the government to borrow in emergencies. Unfortunately, during the last 50 years Congress has continually found excuses to borrow whether there was an emergency or not. The only way to stop this is to replace the big spenders in Congress with Constitutionalists who recognize that we are presently on a disaster course.

The National Debt

49. How much is the national debt today?
The U.S. National Debt is nearly a trillion dollars (extremely higher today!) requiring interest payments which cost more each year than the entire cost of World War I. Future liabilities to which the government is already committed will require taxation of an additional six to seven trillion.

50. How does the U.S. debt compare with the debts of other nations?
The United States now owes more than all of the rest of the nations of the world combined.

51. Why would the Founders have considered this gigantic indebtedness immoral?
The Founders said that no generation should go so deeply in debt that it becomes guilty of squandering the next generation’s inheritance. They said such extravagance is immoral. All past generations tried to pay off all the debts accrued during their time. Ours is the first generation which has deliberately squandered the inheritance of its children.

What About Welfare?

52. But hasn’t much of our money been spent for welfare and other Important social programs?
This was the main excuse for sky-rocketing taxation and deficit spending. Tragically, however, the money has been squandered primarily to build a vast bureaucracy. It is amazing how many of the government’s multibillion dollar social programs have provided only a pittance to trickle down to the poor, the sick and the elderly.

53. But didn’t the government have to try to do something to help those in need?
The Founders specifically warned against this type of political deception where the compassion of the people is exploited to build big government and raise taxes. They said that all types of charity and welfare should be handled on the local level where abuses could be quickly detected and corrected.

54. But what if the states do not provide needed services?
The existence of a need on a State level does not create a power on the Federal level. When a State fails to fulfill its obligation the pressure should be exerted on the State, not the Federal government. Jefferson said there is no way to preserve freedom if all political power gravitates to Washington.

The National Debt and Foreign Aid

55. In view of America’s tremendous national debt, why do we continue giving foreign aid to over a 125 countries?
This whole procedure violates the Constitution and common sense. What started out as part of the defense program in the interest of the United States has turned into an international Santa Claus give-away program. similar to the extravagant give-away programs at home. Tens of billions given away each year automatically add to the national debt.

Social Security

56. Is Social Security an insurance plan or a welfare plan?
The Supreme Court has held that it is a welfare plan. This means that it can be terminated at anytime. It also means the government can distribute its proceeds arbitrarily. The contributor to social security payments acquires no rights and receives only what the government condescends to distribute to him as “payments” if he qualifies under the government’s arbitrary poverty level.

57. Is there a better way?
Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it. [these figures would be higher now]

58. Is the Federal Income Tax Constitutional?
Yes. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted according to the requirements of the constitution.

59. Is this the type of tax which the Founding Fathers would have employed?
No. They provided that direct taxes be apportioned to the States according to population, not according to the incomes of the people.

60. Has income tax been administered uniformly?
No. A graduated income tax violates the equal protection of rights. It violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property of accumulated wealth less sacred than those who have less.

61. Is it possible to administer the Income Tax fairly?
No. This could only be done by setting up a universal monitoring system similar to a “police state.” This would violate all of the basic rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.

62. Would it ever be possible to repeal the Federal Income Tax?
Yes. By phasing out governmental activities which are clearly outside the Constitution, the cost of government would be greatly reduced and the income tax could be safely eliminated.

63. Would the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment interfere with defense and other legitimate Federal responsibilities?
No. Corporate taxes and other sources of Federal revenue would more than adequately provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government if its unconstitutional expenses were phased out. Who knows, there might even be a surplus!

64. What about the thousands of Federal-aid programs covering nearly every aspect of American life?
Federal grants are unconstitutional unless directly related to some power specifically delegated to the Federal Government. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would probably wipe out at least 95% of the Federal-aid programs presently plaguing the nation.

Federal Regulatory Agencies

65. What about EPA?
The Environmental Protection Act involves problems which the Founders delegated exclusively to the States where local supervision could prevent abuses and deal with over-regulation more readily. Today, federal control over air, water, and land environment is strangling the economy and suppressing the development of energy and natural resources.

66. What about OSHA?
Occupational safety and health are important responsibilities but they should never have been delegated to the Federal level. The Founders knew that government is too big, and the legal machinery too expensive for most citizens to handle. They therefore endure the disruptive and oppressive edicts of this agency because it has been too big for the average citizen to fight.

67. What about the Federal Communications Commission?
This agency was designed to “police” the traffic on the air waves but the FCC has used its licensing power to control the editorial content of programs. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.

68. What about the Pure Food and Drug Administration?
There is no authority for this agency under the Constitution. If it is in the national interest to have such an agency it should have been authorized by an amendment. There is already a wide-spread criticism of the arbitrary manner in which this agency has exercised its broad spectrum of power.

69. What about Consumer Protection?
Here again we have an exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution. Do we really want that much power allocated to the Federal level where the agency is so big and powerful that not even the largest corporations are able to cope with its abuses?

What About the Government Setting Up Business Operations?

70. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the government to set up tax-exempt corporations or business operations to compete with tax-paying citizens?
The answer is no, unless the corporation or business is directly connected with an area of Federal responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. For example, an independent government corporation to provide mail service would be constitutional. However, a corporation set up to compete in the production of electricity, the manufacturing of clothes, or the operating of a chain of public restaurants, would not.

71. How many corporations and businesses does the government operate at the present time which are unauthorized by the constitution?
Around 700 corporations and 11,000 businesses. [much higher now]

72. Are all of these tax-exempt?
Yes. They are not only tax-exempt but most of them are being subsidized out of tax funds because they are not being operated efficiently.

What Caused the “Sagebrush Rebellion?”

73. Shouldn’t all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?
Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

74. Which states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an equal footing?
All of the Western States and Alaska.

75. In what ways were they forced to accept statehood unequally?
Large regions of these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

76. About how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these states?
The government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and 96% of Alaska.

77. Are any of these states attempting to get this land back?
Yes. The press has labelled this effort the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” but it is not a rebellion. These states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to have this land turned back to them.

What About Locking Up State Territory As Wilderness Areas?

78. Does the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to lock up large blocks of land within a state as a “wilderness reserve?”
No. This violates the express provisions of the Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.

79. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest within the confines of a state?
No. This is not included in the list of territories which the Federal Government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the State. (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the Constitution to justify it. Historically, the States have had fewer forest fires and have maintained the State forests on a higher level than the national forests.

80. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within the confines of a State?
No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule State Parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by the Federal Government.

What About Federal Control of Energy Resources?
81. Does the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the production of energy resources within a state?
No.

Problems with Government Monopolies

82. What about the widely expanded activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission?
The Founders never intended the “regulation of commerce” to include cartel monopolies, fixing prices, fixing routes, and regulating industries into bankruptcy. The recent deregulation of airlines dramatically demonstrated the advantage of free-market competition over a system of unconstitutional governmental regulations.

83. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set prices?
Not in time of peace.

84. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set wages?
Not in time of peace.

The National Labor Relations Board

85. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to enter into labor-management disputes in the private sector?
No. This area of Federal usurpation occurred during the “New Deal” days by completely distorting the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

The Department of HEW

86. Is there any Constitutional foundation for the extravagant and wasteful expenditures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?
No. Each of the agencies under HEW has developed since the Butler Case. The dictum in this case authorized the general welfare clause to be interpreted in a manner which extended government intrusion into areas specifically excluded from Federal jurisdiction by the Founders.

87. About how much of the Federal budget Is spent each year on these unconstitutional activities?
Around 201 billion dollars in 1980 which is approximately 1/3 of the Federal budget.

88. Would it require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Department of HEW?
No. An act of Congress could dismantle this extremely costly department which has probably been more wasteful and nonproductive in its assigned area of activity than any other branch of the government.

The Equal Rights Amendment

89. Why are so many millions of American women now opposing the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment?
In the beginning nearly everyone assumed that this amendment was designed to provide equal rights for women. This supposed objective was widely approved. It was only after 30 states had ratified this amendment that it was realized that the simple wording of this amendment would actually destroy a broad spectrum of rights which American women already have.

90. What are some of the rights of American women which ERA would destroy?
At present American women enjoy both the common law right as well as the statutory right to be supported, along with their children, by their husbands. ERA would not only destroy this right but also eliminate many rights relating to employment, maternity leave, insurance and survival rights which are presently provided by law.

91. Would passage of the Equal Rights Amendment give women any more rights than they now have?
No. All of the rights which the advocates of ERA claim they are getting for women through the passage of this amendment are already provided by law.

92. Would the passage of ERA further damage the original separation of powers instituted by the Founders?
Yes. For example, it would transfer a large percentage of cases involving family and other domestic problems from the State courts to the Federal judiciary which is already smothered with legal problems.

Abortions

93. Is Federal funding of abortion a violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The specific and limited authority granted to the Federal Government does not include any funding for abortions.

The Gold and Silver Standard

94. Was the United States taken off the gold and silver standard in violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The gold standard is written into the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and was removed by several acts of Congress without an amendment to the Constitution between 1934 and 1964. From the Founding Fathers standpoint this whole procedure was illegal.

The Federal Department of Education

95. Is it Constitutional for Federal funds to be used in the financing of local schools?
No. The Founding Fathers warned against the funding of schools by the Congress. In fact, education in the U.S. has seriously deteriorated since Federal funding began. James Madison equated the Federal funding of schools as extremely dangerous and said it was almost as bad as funding and controlling the churches of the nation.

96. Should the members of State and educational associations be required by law to pay dues to the National Educational Association?
No. The NEA is a private lobby with an annual budget of nearly $60 million dollars. It succeeded in getting the States to pass a law requiring the educators in State associations to pay dues to the NEA. These laws should be repealed. Teachers find themselves compelled to pay dues to this private organization which often advocates policies that are inimical to the best interests of American education.

Taxes on Dividends
97. Should stockholders be required to pay income taxes on their dividends when the corporation has already been subject to a corporate tax?
No. The stockholders are the owners of the company. They have already paid around 48% tax on the company’s earnings. The residue should be distributed among the stockholders as funds on which the required tax has already been paid.

Control of Firearms

98. Should the Federal Government pass laws providing for the control of guns?
No. The Founders left gun control under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State. They felt it was extremely dangerous to allow the Federal Government to “infringe” on the right to bear arms even in the slightest degree.

The Modem Method of Electing Senators

99. Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed?
The Founders would undoubtedly say yes. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people and set up a Senate to represent the individual States. Senators were originally appointed by State legislatures and were the watchdogs of States rights. The Seventeenth Amendment took away the authority of the State Legislatures to appoint Senators. and therefore required Senatorial candidates to appeal to the people in a popular election. This resulted in the Senators frequently ignoring States rights in an effort to get more money for their States just as Congressmen do. States’ rights have been seriously deteriorating since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913. It destroyed an important element of balance which the founders built into the Constitution.

The BLM

100. Should the Bureau of Land Management be abolished?
Yes. This bureau has been rapidly phasing out the traditional grazing rights of ranchers and setting up impossible regulations on land which should have been turned over to the States when they were admitted into the Union.

Government Expenses

101. Can you find out how the government spends its money?
Yes. A complete breakdown of government spending is published each year by the Government Printing Office. This is required by the Constitution.

Conclusion

Now, as nearly as we can ascertain from the writings of the Founding Fathers, this is about the way they would have answered each of these 101 questions. We have also tried to reflect the line of reasoning which their writings portray when similar questions were raised in their own day.

It is believed their point of view deserves careful consideration in view of the rather calamitous consequences which modern Americans have encountered as a result of following a different line of thinking. The socialist or collectivist formula has not worked for Americans; nor any one else for that matter.

It is believed this generation of Americans could earn the eternal gratitude of their descendants if they would immediately undertake to restore the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Misusing the Commerce Clause

2010-08-27T14:04:00.000-07:00

Misusing The Commerce Clause
August 26, 2010 by Bob Livingston

When questioned about the authority of the onerous, overreaching laws they’ve passed — laws like Obamacare, Wall Street reform and bank bailouts — members of Congress have cited the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

That clause, found in Article 1, Section 8, reads:

The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…

From our country’s founding into the 1930s, courts ruled that the Commerce Clause limited the ability of the Federal government to hinder the freedom of individuals, according to Andrew P. Napolitano, in his book, The Constitution in Exile. But that changed in 1937 as Congress continued to push New Deal legislation that increased the power of government and “(The U.S. Supreme Court) simply abrogated its role and stopped enforcing the Constitution’s limits on federal power.”

Since 1937, Congress and the courts have continually expanded government and that has resulted in less freedom for Americans. Now Congress believes everything it passes can affect commerce and therefore falls under its authority under the Commerce Clause.

But James Madison, the father of the Constitution and the fourth President, would not agree. He wrote:

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

As November — and another election day — approaches, Americans need to thoroughly examine their current Representative in the House and their Senator and determine whether he or she has voted in a way that expands governmental overreach, or in a way that upholds the Constitutional principles of the Founding Fathers.

If that Representative is found worthy, vote him or her back into office. If not, find an alternative. If your Senator passes the test and is on the ballot in November — a third of them are up for re-election — then re-elect him or her. But if he or she has failed the test, examine the alternative there.

Hopefully the alternative candidate will understand that Americans are tired of a Congress that grows government into an ever larger freedom-crushing leviathan and apparently doesn’t understand that the Constitution is there to limit government to its 18 enumerated powers. Anything beyond that is not Constitutional and should be abolished.

Union Smears Joe Heck with Lies

2010-08-25T11:19:00.000-07:00

Top Ten Harry Reid Gaffes

2010-08-18T12:09:00.002-07:00

The End is in Sight

2010-07-30T19:16:00.000-07:00

We left Iowa this morning with storm clouds brewing. It wasn't really raining yet, but it was sprinkling a little. And then on to Nebraska. We were a little pleasantly surprised. Nebraska is still flat--no hills at all--and the scenery still consists of miles and miles and miles of corn, and it takes forever to get across the state; but, the landscape was much greener than it was two years ago, which was nice. However, the east side of Colorado is still butt ugly, and to add insult to injury, we hit heavy rain--the kind of rain that, for safety reasons, has you driving at 40 miles per hour in a 75 mph zone. Several cars were pulled off to the side of the road, probably hoping to wait out the rain, but we just kept on driving. Visibility was minimal and became even more minimal when a semi passed the car spraying water all over the windshield. It was a tense ride, but we made.

We checked into our Hampton Inn hotel room in Golden, CO, and then set out to find dinner. We found a Mimi's down the street from our hotel, so we pulled in for a thoroughly enjoyable meal. Now we're back in our room. The weather, though wet, is nice and cool. This is the kind of place where desert rats need to live in the summer. However, given the many areas on the side of the road that say "30 minute chain up area", the winters wouldn't be much fun. Any city that has designated areas to put chains on cars is not a place we want to be in the winter.

We still have many pictures that we haven't posted, so there may be random picture blogging in the future. Hopefully, we'll remember what the pictures are of so we can add captions as well.

And now the end is near

And so we face the final curtain

Our friends, we'll say it clear

We'll state our case, of which we're certain

We've live a life that's full

We've traveled each and every highway

And more, much more than this, we did it our way.

Westward Ho

2010-07-29T17:21:00.000-07:00

Sister's Log Day Six

This morning we packed up our things from the wonderful, spacious, air conditioned Brigham Young suite, loaded up the car, and headed to Fort Madison, Iowa. The gentleman who changed our flat tire yesterday recommended Billups Tire Store in Fort Madison to get the flat tire patched. We found out that somewhere along our travels, the tire picked up a nail. Billups patched the tire, checked the other tires, and off we went. Right before entering Fort Madison, we crossed the Mississippi River again, and this time we crossed on a draw bridge. It was a little higher over the river than the bridge we crossed two days earlier, but it wasn't freaky. Maybe we're getting a handle on our bridge phobias.

We headed west to Omaha, our goal for the day. Edie took the pictures below as we drove through Iowa. Iowa is such a beautiful state with green rolling hills and farm houses and silos dotting the country side.

We arrived in Omaha and checked into our hotel, another Country Inn and Suites. After unloading the car, we decided to visit the Mormon Trail Center. We drove by the site two years ago when we drove across the country on the way to New York, but we didn't go in. Today, we went inside and took the tour. We watched a short film about the travels and trials of the early Saints as they left Nauvoo and arrived in Omaha, where they stayed for the winter. It was known as Winter Quarters to the Saints. The weather was cold and harsh that winter, and almost every family experienced the death of at least one loved one. We viewed some artifacts from the 1840's, one of which was a portion of the Doctrine and Covenants, which was hand written by Brigham Young.

We then went on a hunt for dinner. One of the ladies at the Mormon Trail Center recommended a place called Tusseys, but when we arrived at the restaurant, a note posted on the door stated that it was closed for a week so the staff could go on vacation. So off we went again in search of dinner. We ended up eating at Jimmy John's, a subway sandwich shop that may not have been in the best part of town, but we were hungry.

Now we're back at our hotel, and we're both exhausted. Tomorrow we drive through Nebraska--yippee!--and then on to Denver.

I Love To See the Temple

2010-07-28T15:24:00.000-07:00

Sisters' Log Day Five

I love to see the temple.
I’m going there someday,
To feel the Holy Spirit,
To listen and to pray.
For the temple is a House of God
A place of love and beauty
I’ll prepare myself while I am young,
It is my sacred duty.

Our day started out so nicely. We attended a session at the Nauvoo temple. What a wonderful way to begin a day, except Sandy kept trying to go through doors that evidently weren't where we were supposed to go. The temple patrons were very helpful in pointing her in the right direction. Edie pretended she didn't know Sandy, as she went through the right door. The temple has a clock tower that marks every hour. As we left this morning, it chimed twelve times announcing the beginning of the afternoon. We're surprised Sandy didn't end up in the clock tower in her quest to go through every unmarked door. If nothing else, she had the little temple workers hearts pounding as they chased her down to keep her out of what were probably "sensitive" areas - like the men's dressing room.

This picture was taken from the front steps of the temple. The Mississippi River is in the background.

However, it’s still hot and humid here. The salesperson at one of the gift shops in Nauvoo told us that this is the worst humidity they've had in a couple of years. Last year Nauvoo hit 90 degrees or above for only four days. Today the temperature is 93 degrees and the humidity is 56%. It's stifling.

While walking back to our hotel room, we noticed that a couple of parking spaces had opened up in front of the hotel, so Sandy ran (well for her it was running--we're not as young as we used to be) down the grassy knoll to the gravel lot behind the hotel next door to the one where we were staying so we could park the car closer to our room. We then changed our clothes and went to lunch and to do a little shopping. Zion's Mercantile has a wonderful gift shop with a cute sandwich counter in the back, and their sandwiches are delicious. We walked across the street to go to two more gift shops, and then we were soaked from head to toe from the humidity. As we were walking back to our room, Edie noticed that one of the tires on the car looked a little low. We decided to just keep an eye on it to see if it got any lower. We carried our purchases up the three flights of stairs to our room only to discover that the air conditioning wasn't working properly again. So we sent a text to the general manager of the hotel (she's our new BFF) to let her know. She told us to keep an eye on it to see if the temperature went up any more. So about an hour later we let her know that it was 79 degrees in our room.

A few minutes later she knocked on our door and told us that she was moving us to the hotel next door and upgrading our room. She had two young men take our bags for us. We thought our other room was nice, but this one is like an apartment: two bedrooms, not just two beds, a cute bathroom, living room and a kitchenette. More importantly, our new hotel has an elevator. We would still recommend the room we were in--very cute, very clean, and very nice, but this new room is da bomb! This is the place to stay. We are in the Brigham Young Suite, and it's well worth the price, which we don't have to pay. For our trouble, General Manager Sherry gave each of us a Nauvoo temple book and a piece of the old Nauvoo temple from the 1800's. We love her.

On the way over to this room, we checked on the tire, and sure enough, it was flat. Thank heavens we belong to AAA! We had to miss the pageant we were going to attend, because we were waiting for the nice men who changed our tire and aired up another tire on the car, but we're so glad it's fixed. We'll get the flat tire fixed tomorrow in Fort Madison. Tender mercies were abounding. If we hadn't moved the car, we wouldn't have known until tomorrow when we were getting ready to leave Nauvoo that the tire was flat. Even after we moved the car and knew the tire was low, we probably wouldn't have checked on it again tonight but since we changed rooms, we decided while we were by the car we would take a look at the tire. We have definitely been watched over.

The two pictures below were taken from the small balcony off our first room, and the views are nice.

Below are the views from the double-french-doored large balcony in our new room. Very nice!

BFF Sherry told us that there had always been a rumor that Joseph Smith had an underground tunnel constructed in Nauvoo for his use when he lived here in the 1840's, but no one had ever found it. The tunnel wasn't found even when the basement was dug for the new temple, so it remained a legend. However, when the hotel in which we're staying, put in a sprinkler system, they discovered the tunnel. They have no idea where it starts or ends, because parts of it are under public roads, but the part that's under these hotels is on private property, so the owners lowered a camera into the tunnel to take pictures. Today we were able to see those pictures. The tunnel is lined with red bricks mortared together. Even though no one knows the length or the destination of the tunnels, it's assumed that they extend below the city to Joseph Smith's house and to other Church sites.

Below are a couple more pictures that we took today:

Joseph Smith

Monument dedicated to the memory of Joseph Smith's parents, Joseph Smith Sr., and Lucy Mack Smith.

Here's hoping the rest of our trip will be complete with inflated tires and that Sandy won't get lost.

Follow the Prophet

2010-07-27T20:26:00.000-07:00

Sisters’ Log - Day Three

Today was our last day in Kansas, so we packed up the car and headed northeast. Our first stop was at Far West, Missouri. The cornerstones for the Far West Temple were first laid at a patriotic celebration on 4 July 1838. In October of that year, the infamous extermination order by Governor Boggs initiated the forced expulsion of the church from Missouri. Far West was virtually abandoned when the apostles gathered here on 26 April 1839. They re-laid the temple cornerstones on that occasion.

Far West Temple corner stone

We left Far West and drove to Adam-Ondi-Ahman. This is the Adamic word meaning Valley of God where Adam dwelt. It's located 70 miles northeast of Independence, Missouri. It's where members of the LDS faith believe that Adam and Eve first dwelt when they left the Garden of Eden.

Then it was on to Nauvoo, Illinois. We were almost to Keokuk, Iowa, and the road that Mrs. Garmin was taking us on was closed. There were no signs to take us to a detour, so we made a U-turn and pulled into a Quicki-Mart. Sandy walked in and started to ask for directions, but before she could get out the sentence, a gentleman handed her a piece of paper with hand-written directions. Evidently they’ve been asked before. The gentleman explained that due to heavy rains, the river had gone over the bridge and on to the road, necessitating the road closure. So we followed the hand written directions and took a long detour to Keokuk.

Sandy was driving and she was being very vigilant about driving at the posted speed limit (she tends to have a heavy foot—no need to comment on anything else she has that may be heavy). We didn’t want to get a speeding ticket and especially not in some small country town, or we’d never be seen again. She had to come to a complete stop in Keokuk, Iowa, to let a dog meander across the street. It walked in front of our car and then stopped in front of the car going the opposite direction and turned to look at us. Needless to say, the lady in the other car was not happy. She honked and yelled, and then the dog meandered to the other side of the road. A couple of miles later, we had to stop the car because a horse was in the middle of the road. A man and lady came after the horse, grabbed the reins, and led it to safety. Evidently, it’s let-your-farm-animals-run-free day in Iowa.

There was a bridge crossing when we came to the Mississippi River, but it wasn’t painful. Even though the river was rather wide at the point we crossed, the bridge was not scary at all, so we dodged a bullet there. There were about twenty miles of road that border the Mississippi River all the way to Nauvoo—very scenic, but not for the water phobic. The first sight to greet us was the temple. Edie tried to take a picture, but couldn’t get a good shot. Later when we got to the hotel, she looked at her phone and there was a picture of the temple (see below). Edie has no memory of taking this picture—it was a temple miracle.

Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum

Our hotel is across the street from the temple and our room is on the third floor with great views. It’s considered a historical sight and the building is very quaint. Did you know that in buildings that are considered historical, they don’t have to put in elevators. Apparently they don’t even have to tell you on the phone that there are no elevators or even that they’re not handicap accessible. With Sandy recently being diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and with both of us just being out of shape, this posed a problem. We consolidated our belongings into one suitcase each, and we managed to get ourselves up to our room. Then we realized that the air conditioning wasn’t working, and that was a huge problem. It is so darn muggy in Nauvoo, and by this time we were soaking wet from the humidity. We must say, however, that the general manager of the hotel has been very accommodating and very nice. She was finally able to get an air conditioning guy here to fix the air—thank heavens! However, right now it’s still 80 degrees in our room. Hopefully, the temperature will start going down soon. This hotel also leaves a breakfast basket in the room full of pastries, juices, and instant oatmeal. We really do like this place—except for the lack of elevators and the broken AC. We'll post pictures of our room tomorrow--it really is nice

So now we’re in our room relaxing. Tomorrow we’re going through the 10:00 session of the Nauvoo temple, and then tomorrow night we’re going to the Joseph Smith pageant.

Time to turn in--more tomorrow.

Show-Me State Shows Us Some Sights

2010-07-26T16:25:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Missouri!

We started out the morning with a picture text from Sandy's son, Paul. This is Sandy's grandson, Jonas--he fell out of a swing. We know that accidents are inevitable with little boys, but this picture hurts our feelings. He really doesn't look happy.

Then we headed to Bob Evans for breakfast. We first tried Bob Evans in Buffalo two years ago. Bob Evans is owned by the same people who own Mimi's restaurants. We love Bob Evans stuffed pancakes and their restaurant is very cute with a country look.

After breakfast we went sightseeing. First we visited the LDS church's Liberty Jail. Liberty Jail is where the prophet Joseph Smith, his brother Hyrum, and two other men spent several months. It was one of the most trying times of Joseph Smith's life. The conditions were horrible and their treatment was disgraceful. One of the guards eventually let the men escape because he knew they were incarcerated on false charges.

This is the upper room of the Liberty Jail where the jail keeper lived.

This is the bottom half of the jail where Joseph Smith and his three companions were held. The ceiling is six feet tall, and one of the men, Lyman Wight, was between 6' 4" and 6' 6" tall. For the many months these men were held in this jail, he was never able to stand up all the way.

This is one side of the Liberty Jail. The room where Joseph Smith and his companions were kept had only two small windows, one on each side, and both windows had bars.

This is a replica of the golden plates, which, after being translated by Joseph Smith, became know as The Book of Mormon.

We left the jail and headed to the presidential library of Harry S. Truman. We probably spent two hours there just going through both floors of the library. It was very interesting and we decided that we needed to tour other presidential libraries.

Replica of the Oval Office

*
*

Globe by which President Truman stood for photo ops with dignitaries

President Truman's home in Independence, Missouri

This picture is blurry, but it goes with the marker below.

Signed in Blood: "This book contains the names of ? Chinese and North Koreans in Prisoner of War Camp #1. The POWs, who had all converted to Christianity, made anti-communist pledges and ? their names with thumb prints in their own blood. The book was presented to the Reverend Billy Graham, who, in turn, presented it to President Dwight Eisenhower on November 6, 1953."

One of President Truman's presidential cars.

This marker goes with the guns above it. It says, "Grisello Torresola and Oscar Collazo carried these weapons in the attempted assassination of President Truman. Using the Luger pistol, Torresola mortally wounded White House Policeman Leslie Coffett, before being killed himself by Coffett in the ensuing gun battle."

President Truman's freemasonry items

Truman's presidential china

We also took the time to drive by the Kansas City Royals baseball stadium and the Reorganized LDS Church's headquarters and temple. They have no affiliation with the LDS church.

Kansas City Royals baseball stadium

Headquarters of Reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is now known as Church of Christ (no affiliation with the LDS church).

RLDS, Church of Christ, temple in Missouri

On Church of Christ property: "August 3, 1831, Joseph Smith, Jr., Prophet and Founder of the Church of Christ, with seven other Church leaders, dedicated this site for the Temple in the City of Zion, where this Church believes the Lord will come to His people in the Last Days."

Eternal flame at President Truman's library.

Statue of President Truman

Scary bridge alert -- Missouri River. Sandy was driving as we approached this bridge. There were a few moments of panic, but once we got up close to it, we could see that the river wasn't that wide at that point and that the bridge didn't rise too high above it. So the white knuckle driving was kept to a minimum. However, we have to cross the Mississippi River tomorrow. Stay tuned.

We ended the day at Maggie Moo's ice cream, which is conveniently located across the street from our hotel. Edie had Chocolate Better Batter and Sandy had Udderly Cream.

Ines ~ The frozen custard we got yesterday only came in chocolate and vanilla. Guess which one of us got which flavor.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

2010-07-25T20:18:00.000-07:00

After a hot breakfast at the Country Inn & Suites where we stayed last night, we left Denver heading east to Kansas. This is the third time we've stayed in one of the Country Inn rooms, and we give them all four of our thumbs up. The rooms are clean and the wi fi and breakfast are included with the room, which was very reasonably priced.

We weren't looking forward to driving through Kansas, because we thought the drive would be similar to when we drove through Nebraska two years ago. Nebraska has no scenery, except corn, and the roads are so bumpy, you would swear your tires are falling off the car. But we were pleasantly surprised. Kansas did have a little corn at the beginning of the state, but the rest of the drive was beautiful green rolling hill, farms, and several towns along the way. We hit some rain, and in a couple of spots it was a little difficult to see the road, but those spots didn't last too long. It wasn't nearly as bad as the rain we went through in Iowa two years ago.

We hit Topeka, Kansas, around 5:30 PST. We gassed up the car and noticed a frozen custard sign across the street. Since we hadn't eaten since breakfast, we accepted the invitation. We're not sure at which point the custard starts being so creamy and tasty, but it's just not made the same way here as it is in Nevada. It seems to us that the farther east you go, the better the frozen custard gets.

We didn't have much conversation in the car, because Sandy drove while Edie read a book, Glenn Beck's The Overton Window, out loud.

Below are some pictures from today's travels:

Yesterday we posted pictures of the beautiful Rocky Mountains on the west side of Denver. This is what the east side of Denver looks like. We were afraid that this scenery would be with us for the entire day, but thankfully Kansas is very scenic.

*
*

Crossing into Kansas

*
*

Storm clouds brewing

Someday we want to take the tour through the Oz Museum.

We're staying in Kansas two days, during which we plan to see some Church History sites as well as the Harry S. Truman library.

Goodbye for now--we're off to see the Wizard.

Edie & Sandy's Semi Big Adventure (the trip--not us)

2010-07-24T20:18:00.000-07:00

Sisters' Log - Day One

We embarked today on another road trip. This summer we're traveling to Nauvoo, Illinois, on a mini church history tour. We left our home in Southern Utah this morning with the plan to get a breakfast pastry in the town just north. We were sabotaged by the 24th of July parade going down the main street, so we stopped at the local Quicki-Mart and picked up cookies and sodas (which we thought we had given up--the sodas, not the cookies). We'll have to go on another 12-step soda program when we get home, but we digress.

We promised each other that under no circumstances, would we stop in Green River, Utah, on this trip. We stopped there two years ago and could have sworn we heard the Twilight Zone theme song playing in the background. We thought we had it all planned out--just take I-70 right past Green River on to Grand Junction, Colorado. So after we stopped at Green River to get gas, we reviewed our plan to see where we went wrong. Note to self: gas up in Grand Junction, Colorado, on the way home so we don't have to stop in Green River, Utah, yet again.

The picture to the right is of Green River, Utah. As you can see, not much to look at.

The following pictures were taken through a dirty windshield while we drove along I-70. Some are in Utah and some are in Colorado.

Use your own caption with this one.

After stopping in Green River, we were so excited to see this sign.

Beautiful Rocky Mountains

Ski lift in Vail, Colorado

Colorado River running along the Rocky Mountains

On of the four tunnels through which we traveled in Colorado.

Actual conversation in car:

Edie looking at map: Hey, Elephant Butte!

Sandy: So you have one, too.

Edie: Butte, not butt.

Sandy: Oh.

Until tomorrow, Happy Trails...

God is in Charge

2010-07-21T07:48:00.000-07:00

"All that we possess is the gift of God. We should acknowledge him in all things. We sometimes talk about men having this right and the other right. We have no rights, only such as God gives us. . . . Our safety and happiness and our wealth depend upon our obedience to God and his laws..." (The Gospel Kingdom, p. 248). - John Taylor -

Self-Reliance

2010-07-20T07:45:00.000-07:00

"The skill of building up and establishing the Zion of our God on the earth is to take the people and teach them how to take care of themselves and that which the Lord has entrusted to their care . . . to take what we have and divide amongst or give to people, without teaching them how to earn and produce, would be no more nor less than to introduce the means of reducing them to a state of poverty. I do not wish for one moment to recognize the idea that in order to establish the United Order our property has to be divided equally" (Journal of Discourses, 18:353-354, as quoted in Working Toward Zion, p. 95). - Brigham Young -

We See the Hand of the Lord

2010-07-15T08:54:00.000-07:00

"We look upon George Washington, the father of our country, as an inspired instrument of the Almighty; we can see the all-inspiring Spirit operating upon him. And upon his co-workers in resisting oppression, and in establishing the thirteen colones as a confederacy; and then again the workings of the same Spirit upon those men who established the Constitution of the United States. . . . We see the hand of the Lord in these things" (The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p. 191-192).

"As far as constitutional liberty is concerned, I will say, the God of heaven has raised up our nation, as foretold by his prophets generations ago. . . . It is also well known how our forefathers found a home and an asylum in this land from the hand of persecution, and how they planted here the tree of liberty and jealously guarded it from the attempt of the mother country to uproot and destroy it. The hand of God was in this; and it is through the intervention of his providence that we enjoy today the freest and most independent government the world ever saw. "And what was the object of this? It was to prepare the way for the building up of the kingdom of God in this last dispensation of the fulness of times; and as long as the principles of constitutional liberty shall be maintained upon this land, blessings will attend the nation." (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, p. 188-189).

The Devil is in the Details

2010-07-12T10:54:00.000-07:00

Joseph Fielding Smith said:
“Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the President of the United States …it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan himself." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, pp.314-315)

Remembering From Whence We Came

2010-07-01T13:24:00.000-07:00

The Loyal Opposition
By Steve Farrell

On the 6th of June 1776, Boston’s Samuel Adams wrote to fellow Son of Liberty, James Warren, President of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts: “Tomorrow, a motion will be made, and a question I hope decided, the most important that was ever agitated in America.”

Indeed it was. The motion introduced in the Second Continental Congress by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia read:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of a right, ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved, from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; that it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign alliances; and that a plan of confederation be prepared, and transmitted to the respective colonies for their consideration and approbation.

The very introduction of this resolution, so far as the King, the British Parliament, and to tens of thousands of loyalists this side of the Atlantic was concerned was an open act of sedition, the sure fire equivalent of a death sentence to its authors, supporters, and enforcers.

Remembering that three years prior, those who had merely joined hands with the Boston Committee of Correspondence were branded as “atheists,” and “black-hearted fellows whom one would not choose to meet in the dark,” as well as “deluded … atrocious criminals,” and “malignant spirits.” “Traitor” and “death to these devilish traitors” logically came next and did.

But again, what of this charge, “traitor”? A decade earlier, in February of 1766, Richard Henry Lee authored another document, the Westmoreland Resolution, probably the first public and open resistance to the Mother Country. It bound citizens to support “our lawful sovereign, George the Third … so far as is consistent with the preservation of our rights and liberty.” (my emphasis)

Or to put it another way, sedition in a constitutional republic is defined as disloyalty to the Charter or Constitution and the Higher Laws upon which it rests, not disloyalty to any man, group of men, or current administration. If then the King, President, or other government official is fundamentally and/or dangerously at odds with those Higher Laws, criticism and the use of every legal channel of resistance is not treasonous but virtuous. “Rebellion to tyrants,” penned Jefferson, Franklin, and before them John Bradshaw, “is obedience to God.”

This was just as much the case in the last resort of violence, or when every legal channel had been exhausted and a long train of abuses became intolerable.

It is upon this proper understanding of things as they once were in America, and still ought to be, that Thomas Paine wrote in 1776:

But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING.

For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.

There is a definite order of things here, the Foundation is God’s law, the structure built upon it, the Constitution (in 1776 the Charter), everything else, executive, legislative, and judicial officers, and the laws they make, enforce, and judge, are to be subservient thereto, and if not, the loyalty of the people flies to the law, not to the usurper or king man or socialist.

As if to put an explanation mark on this point, Paine added:

But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is. A government of our own is our natural right.

Centralized power, and especially a distant centralized power, was too big a temptation for men in power to make themselves kings and tyrants, even Gods, and thus too big a threat to the whole inspired idea of republican government — and so there ought not ever be a monarch or anything like unto it. But Paine is also noting that whereas the Divine and constitutional Law is King, one of those divine laws is that man can only be ruled by consent.

Why? God made man in his image, endowed him with agency, including various inalienable rights, and in that he forces no man to Heaven, certainly no government has the right to force him into a so-called heaven on earth, even a socialist Utopia.

Which brings us to the current crisis in America.

It is the loyal opposition that resists this betrayal of all that our forefathers bequeathed to us — especially when one recognizes that today brand of tyranny (a socialism that has advanced for a century, usually by stealth and patient gradualism, but of late, more openly and aggressively) is far worse than anything our forefathers faced.

Yet we have more tools to fight back than they had against England: representative government, frequent elections, vertical and horizontal separation of powers to include the principle of federalism, checks and balances, impeachment, the rule of law, a bill of rights to include freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, petition, and so forth.

The truly patriotic and wise will use these, use them first, use them effectively, use them consistently and persistently, and protect their continued availability with all the vigor of heart and soul and mind they merit.

This then is the loyal opposition … to the usurpers in DC. To use every constitutional tool in the arsenal to throw the bums out — to restore the limited government and free enterprise system of our forefathers, and to be virtuous and vigilant thereafter. That is enough. But let us do no less.

Steve Farrell is one of the original pundits at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com (1999–2008), associate professor of political economy at George Wythe University, the author of the highly praised inspirational novel “Dark Rose,” and editor in chief of The Moral Liberal

2010-06-30T18:15:00.000-07:00

Happy 8th Birthday, Kobe!

A special birthday for a special boy. We love you!