Dr. Milton Wolf speaks out against his cousin, Barack Obama.
The conservative holdout in Barack Obama’s own family speaks out.
I may not be the first doctor to oppose Obamacare, but I am the first
doctor in Barack Obama’s own family to oppose Obamacare. I’m genuinely
proud to call Barack family. I think my cousin is a caring man and I
think he means well. But he’s a man who profoundly misunderstands
America and what makes it exceptional.
Our Time For Choosing:
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/wolf-an-all-american-family-feud-video/#ixzz1wVh3OcF7
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Illinois State Rep Bosts Rants "Let My People Go"
Illinois State Representative Mike Bost has finally had enough of politics as usual in the State of Illinois and wants to know why they don't READ THE BILL. Bost erupted on the House floor Tuesday afternoon, after Mike Madigan and the party leadership called for a vote on a new pension reform proposal.
House Speaker Mike Madigan had only introduced the bill that same morning. It passed on a six to three vote and moved to the House floor for discussion within a couple of hours.
The bill is hundreds of pages long, and Bost says lawmakers should not be voting on a proposal without first reading it.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
AWESOME SPEECH BY ALAN KEYES AT THE RALLY FOR COMMON SENSE
Noted speaker and political luminary Alan Keyes joined fellow conservatives on the Patriot Field of Dreams on May 19th, 2012, at the Rally for Common Sense in Holts Summit, Missouri. Keyes spoke about the need to be honest with ourselves about the problems now confronting America and how the Republican and Democrat parties collude to further the interests of the elite establishment.
views: 1148
http://www.RallyForCommonSense.org
http://LoyalToLiberty.com/
http://LoyalToLiberty.blogspot.com/
http://RebootCongress.blogspot.com/
Sunday, May 27, 2012
President Reagan's Remarks at Memorial Day Ceremonies Honoring an Unknown Serviceman of the Vietnam Conflict on May 28, 1984
President Reagan's Remarks at Memorial Day Ceremonies Honoring an Unknown Serviceman of the Vietnam Conflict on May 28, 1984
For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, please visit http://www.reaganfoundation.orgMy fellow Americans, Memorial Day is a day of ceremonies and speeches. Throughout America today, we honor the dead of our wars. We recall their valor and their sacrifices. We remember they gave their lives so that others might live.We're also gathered here for a special event—the national funeral for an unknown soldier who will today join the heroes of three other wars.
When he spoke at a ceremony at Gettysburg in 1863, President Lincoln reminded us that through their deeds, the dead had spoken more eloquently for themselves than any of the living ever could, and that we living could only honor them by rededicating ourselves to the cause for which they so willingly gave a last full measure of devotion.
Well, this is especially so today, for in our minds and hearts is the memory of Vietnam and all that that conflict meant for those who sacrificed on the field of battle and for their loved ones who suffered here at home.
Not long ago, when a memorial was dedicated here in Washington to our Vietnam veterans, the events surrounding that dedication were a stirring reminder of America's resilience, of how our nation could learn and grow and transcend the tragedies of the past.
During the dedication ceremonies, the rolls of those who died and are still missing were read for 3 days in a candlelight ceremony at the National Cathedral. And the veterans of Vietnam who were never welcomed home with speeches and bands, but who were never defeated in battle and were heroes as surely as any who have ever fought in a noble cause, staged their own parade on Constitution Avenue. As America watched them—some in wheelchairs, all of them proud—there was a feeling that this nation—that as a nation we were coming together again and that we had, at long last, welcomed the boys home.
"A lot of healing went on," said one combat veteran who helped organize support for the memorial. And then there was this newspaper account that appeared after the ceremonies. I'd like to read it to you. "Yesterday, crowds returned to the Memorial. Among them was Herbie Petit, a machinist and former marine from New Orleans. 'Last night,' he said, standing near the wall, 'I went out to dinner with some other ex-marines. There was also a group of college students in the restaurant. We started talking to each other. And before we left, they stood up and cheered us. The whole week,' Petit said, his eyes red, 'it was worth it just for that.'"
It has been worth it. We Americans have learned to listen to each other and to trust each other again. We've learned that government owes the people an explanation and needs their support for its actions at home and abroad. And we have learned, and I pray this time for good, the most valuable lesson of all—the preciousness of human freedom.
It has been a lesson relearned not just by Americans but by all the people of the world. Yet, while the experience of Vietnam has given us a stark lesson that ultimately must move the conscience of the world, we must remember that we cannot today, as much as some might want to, close this chapter in our history, for the war in Southeast Asia still haunts a small but brave group of Americans—the families of those still missing in the Vietnam conflict.
They live day and night with uncertainty, with an emptiness, with a void that we cannot fathom. Today some sit among you. Their feelings are a mixture of pride and fear. They're proud of their sons or husbands, fathers or brothers who bravely and nobly answered the call of their country. But some of them fear that this ceremony writes a final chapter, leaving those they love forgotten.
Well, today then, one way to honor those who served or may still be serving in Vietnam is to gather here and rededicate ourselves to securing the answers for the families of those missing in action. I ask the Members of Congress, the leaders of veterans groups, and the citizens of an entire nation present or listening, to give these families your help and your support, for they still sacrifice and suffer.
Vietnam is not over for them. They cannot rest until they know the fate of those they loved and watched march off to serve their country. Our dedication to their cause must be strengthened with these events today. We write no last chapters. We close no books. We put away no final memories. An end to America's involvement in Vietnam cannot come before we've achieved the fullest possible accounting of those missing in action.
This can only happen when their families know with certainty that this nation discharged her duty to those who served nobly and well. Today a united people call upon Hanoi with one voice: Heal the sorest wound of this conflict. Return our sons to America. End the grief of those who are innocent and undeserving of any retribution.
The Unknown Soldier who is returned to us today and whom we lay to rest is symbolic of all our missing sons, and we will present him with the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military decoration that we can bestow.
About him we may well wonder, as others have: As a child, did he play on some street in a great American city? Or did he work beside his father on a farm out in America's heartland? Did he marry? Did he have children? Did he look expectantly to return to a bride?
We'll never know the answers to these questions about his life. We do know, though, why he died. He saw the horrors of war but bravely faced them, certain his own cause and his country's cause was a noble one; that he was fighting for human dignity, for free men everywhere. Today we pause to embrace him and all who served us so well in a war whose end offered no parades, no flags, and so little thanks. We can be worthy of the values and ideals for which our sons sacrificed—worthy of their courage in the face of a fear that few of us will ever experience—by honoring their commitment and devotion to duty and country.
Many veterans of Vietnam still serve in the Armed Forces, work in our offices, on our farms, and in our factories. Most have kept their experiences private, but most have been strengthened by their call to duty. A grateful nation opens her heart today in gratitude for their sacrifice, for their courage, and for their noble service. Let us, if we must, debate the lessons learned at some other time. Today, we simply say with pride, "Thank you, dear son. May God cradle you in His loving arms."
We present to you our nation's highest award, the Congressional Medal of Honor, for service above and beyond the call of duty in action with the enemy during the Vietnam era.
Thank you.
Note: The President spoke at 2:15 p.m. at the Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery. Earlier in the day, the President returned to the White House following a weekend stay at Camp David, MD. Upon his arrival by helicopter on the South Lawn, he proceeded to the motorcade for the drive to the cemetery.
Citation: Ronald Reagan: "Remarks at Memorial Day Ceremonies Honoring an Unknown Serviceman of the Vietnam Conflict," May 28, 1984. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=39975.
Ezra Taft Benson VS Barack Obama (VIDEO)
This is a stark reminder of what our country is up against.
The warnings that Mr Benson sounded over 50 years ago, prove his prophecy of the destruction of our country from within.
"Ezra Taft Benson discusses the communist & socialist dangers facing our society while Barack Obama pushes for and believes in implementing those same dangers in our country."
He served as Secretary of Agriculture in the cabinet of U. S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
RELATED LINKS:
THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE SAVED-BUT NOT IN WASHINGTON
THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
The Proper Role Of Government (VIDEO)
The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson Part 1
The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson Part 2
The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson Part 3
The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson Part 4
The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson Part 5
The Proper Role of Government
by The Honorable Ezra Taft Benson~Former Secretary of Agriculture [The Eisenhower Administration - ed.]
Published in 1968
President Nelson, my fellow Americans, I stand before you tonight, humbly grateful to God for the blessings we all enjoy as citizens of these great United States of America.I am grateful for our Founding Father's who were raised up with the courage to give their lives, with the unselfishness to give their fortunes, and the vision to pledge their sacred honor in order to establish a new kind of government, of their own choosing, to be free. I'm additionally grateful that these Founding Fathers had the faith and humility to accept the divine inspirations so necessary in setting forth a Constitution as the foundation for their new Republic.
I am honored with the priviledge of addressing you tonight on the vital subject of the proper role of government.
Men in the public spotlight constantly are asked to express an opinion on a myriad of government proposals and projects. "What do you think of TVA?" "What is your opinion of Medicare?" How do you feel about Urban Renewal?" The list is endless.
All too often, answers to these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government program in question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they, themselves, wish to be popular - especially if they seek public office.
Government Should Be Based Upon Sound Principles
Such an approach to vital political questions of the day can only lead to public confusion and legislative chaos. Decisions of this nature should be based upon and measured against certain basic principles regarding the proper role of government. If principles are correct, then they can be applied to any specific proposal with confidence."Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference to which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution." (Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, P. 21-22)Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just.
The Correct Role Of Government
I should like to outline in clear, concise, and straight-forward terms the political principles to which I subscribe. These are the guidelines which determine, now and in the future, my attitudes and actions toward all domestic proposals and projects of government.These are the principles which, in my opinion, proclaim the proper role of government in the domestic affairs of the nation:
"(I) believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."
"(I) believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life..."
"(I) believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, 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; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience." (D&C 134: 1-2,5)
The Most Important Function Of Government
It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of the individual citizens. But, what are those rights? And what is their source? Until these questions are answered there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them.Thomas Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution, explained that:
"Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another... It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man." (P.P.N.S., p. 134)The great Thomas Jefferson asked:
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" (Works 8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)Starting at the foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know are human rights.
There are only two possible sources.
Rights are either God-given as part of the Divine Plan, or they are granted by government as part of a political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise.
As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (The Law, p.6)
The Real Meaning Of The Separation Of Church And State
I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from a formal recognition of God.The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny.
If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations - a throwback to the Feudal System of the Dark Ages.
We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (P.P.N. S., p.519)Since God created man with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he has created. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the non-believer can appreciate the logic of this relationship.
The Source Of Governmental Power
Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the divine origin of rights, it is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized.It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it.
This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: "WE THE PEOPLE... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.
Of course, as James Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (The Federalist, No. 51)
Natural Rights
In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?" (The Law, p.6)Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three - defending themselves, their property and their liberty - in what properly was called the "Lawless West."
In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegates to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves - nothing more. Quoting again from Bastiat:
"If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right." (The Law, p. 6)So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.
If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:
"For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another." (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)
The Proper Function Of Government
This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will.
Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.
The Powers Of A Proper Government
It also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective functions such as:(1) The maintenance of courts where those charged with crimes may be tried and where disputes between citizens may be impartially settled.
(2) The establishment of a monetary system and a standard of weights and measures so that courts may render money judgments, taxing authorities may levy taxes, and citizens may have a uniform standard to use in their business dealings.
My attitude toward government is succinctly expressed by the following provision taken from the Alabama Constitution:
"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." (Art. 1, Sec. 35)An important test I use in passing judgment upon an act of government is this: If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so? Since my conscience will never permit me to physically punish my fellow man unless he has done something evil, or unless he has failed to do something which I have a moral right to require of him to do, I will never knowingly authorize my agent, the government to do this on my behalf.
I realize that when I give my consent to the adoption of a law, I specifically instruct the police - the government - to take either the life, liberty, or property of anyone who disobeys that law.
Furthermore, I tell them that if anyone resists the enforcement of the law, they are to use any means necessary - yes, even putting the lawbreaker to death or putting him in jail - to overcome such resistance. These are extreme measures but unless laws are enforced, anarchy results.
As John Locke explained many years ago:
"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, 'a liberty for every man to do what he lists.' For who could be free, when every other man's humor might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 57: P>P>N>S., p.101)I believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government program. We should fully recognize that government is no plaything.
As George Washington warned, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!" (The Red Carpet, p.142) It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.
The Constitution Of The United States
Another standard I use in determining what law is good and what is bad is the Constitution of the United States. I regard this inspired document as a solemn agreement between the citizens of this nation which every officer of government is under a sacred duty to obey.As Washington stated so clearly in his immortal Farewell Address:
"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. - But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government." (P.P.N.S., p. 542)I am especially mindful that the Constitution provides that the great bulk of the legitimate activities of government are to be carried out at the state or local level. This is the only way in which the principle of "self-government" can be made effective.
As James Madison said before the adoption of the Constitution, " (We) rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." (Federalist, No.39; P.P.N.S., p. 128)
Thomas Jefferson made this interesting observation: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." (Works 8:3; P.P.N.S., p. 128)
The Value Of Local Government
It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possible do the job should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom.Thomas Jefferson understood this principle very well and explained it this way:
"The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordination's, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body." (Works 6:543; P.P.N.S., p. 125)It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states.
Things The Government Should Not Do
A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government.No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.
To be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient. If I could only FORCE the ignorant to provide for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth! But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far, but no farther?" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives?
We shouldn't forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland that "... though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people." (P.P.N.S., p.345)
We should also remember, as Frederic Bastiat reminded us, that "Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in." (THE LAW, p. 30; P.P.N.S., p. 350)
The Dividing Line Between Proper And Improper Government
As Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called "benefits" for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder.It becomes a lever of unlimited power which is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit its favorite charities - all with the other fellow's money, of course. (THE LAW, 1850, reprinted by the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-On-Hudson, N.Y.)
The Nature Of Legal Plunder
Listen to Bastiat's explanation of this "legal plunder":"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it - without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud - to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed!
"How is the legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime..." (THE LAW, p. 21, 26; P.P.N.S., p. 377)As Bastiat observed, and as history has proven, each class or special interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust.
Labor gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone suffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal freedom.
With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states.
Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistribute function, then forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism.
"It is impossible," Bastiat correctly observed, "to
introduce into society... a greater evil than this: the conversion of
the law into an instrument of plunder." (THE LAW, p. 12)
Government Cannot Create Wealth
Students of history know that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. James R. Evans, in his inspiring book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:"Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy. "Neither you nor I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man's doorbell, hold out a hand and say, 'Give me what you've earned even though I have not.' We simply wouldn't do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, 'Thou shalt not steal.' In short, we would be held accountable for our actions."The free creative energy of this choice nation "created more than 50% of all the world's products and possessions in the short span of 160 years. The only imperfection in the system is the imperfection in man himself." The last paragraph in this remarkable Evans book - which I commend to all - reads:
"No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours." (Charles Hallberg and Co., 116 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60610)
The Basic Error Of Marxism
According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature.In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail.
The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility inside a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities.
It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed.
The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.
The Real Cause Of American Prosperity
Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain.As Henry David Thoreau explained:
"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:
"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." (Works 8:3)
A Formula For Prosperity
The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula:
1) Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.
2) Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.
3) Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4) This is not possible without incentive.
5) Of all forms of incentive - the freedom to attain a reward for
one's labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called
THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to
enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6) This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations
and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.
7) Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute
the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual
destruction of the productive base of society, without which real
abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite
impossible.
An Example Of The Consequences Of Disregarding These Principles
We have before us currently a sad example of what happens to a nation which ignores these principles. Former FBI agent, Dan Smoot, succinctly pointed this out on his broadcast number 649, dated January 29, 1968, as follows:"England was killed by an idea: the idea that the weak, indolent and profligate must be supported by the strong, industrious, and frugal - to the degree that tax-consumers will have a living standard comparable to that of taxpayers; the idea that government exists for the purpose of plundering those who work to give the product of their labor to those who do not work. The economic and social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea will destroy any society which adopts it and clings to it as a basic principle - ANY society."
The Power Of True Liberty From Improper Governmental Interference
Nearly two hundred years ago, Adam Smith, the Englishman, who understood these principles very well, published his great book, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS (audio file) The Wealth Of Nations (PDF file) which contains this statement:"The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition, when suffered to exert itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a principle, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations; though the effect of these obstructions is always more or less either to encroach upon its freedom, or to diminish its security." (Vol. 2, Book 4, Chapt. 5, p. 126)
But What About The Needy?
On the surface this may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those less fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how affluent."What about the lame, the sick and the destitute? Is an often-voice question.
Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need.
Yet, in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in.
As Henry Grady Weaver wrote, in his excellent book, THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS:(FREE DOWNLOAD)
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own....THE HARM DONE BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, GANGSTERS, AND THIEVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL 'DO-GOODERS', who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/94932681/The-Mainspring-of-Human-Progress" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">The Mainspring of Human Progress<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/94932681/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-1apwachder1hhkygzdtk" data-auto-height="true" data-aspect-ratio="0.750920245398773" scrolling="no" id="doc_17501" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0">iframe>
The Better Way
By comparison, America traditionally has followed Jefferson's advice of relying on individual action and charity. The result is that the United States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the entire world or throughout all history. Even during the depression of the 1930's, Americans ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today.What Is Wrong With A "Little" Socialism?
In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too!History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime.
Three Reasons American Need Not Fall For Socialist Deceptions
Three factors may make a difference:- First, there is sufficient historical knowledge of the failures of socialism and of the past mistakes of previous civilizations.
- Secondly, there are modern means of rapid communications to transmit these lessons of history to a large literate population.
- And thirdly, there is a growing number of dedicated men and women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these concepts.
How Can Present Socialistic Trends Be Reversed?
This brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the various welfare-state features of our government which have already fastened themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic?Isn't drastic surgery already necessary, and can it be performed without endangering the patient? In answer, it is obvious that drastic measures ARE called for. No half-way or compromise actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to be saved, and it can be done without undue risk.
Obviously, not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social upheaval. To try to do so would be like finding oneself at the controls of a hijacked airplane and attempting to return it by simply cutting off the engines in flight. It must be flown back, flown back, lowered in altitude, gradually reduced in speed and brought in for a smooth landing.
Translated into practical terms, this means:
- that the first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their present level, making sure that no new ones are added.
- The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their term with absolutely no renewal.
- The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term.
Summary Thus Far:
As I summarize what I have attempted to cover, try to visualize the structural relationship between the six vital concepts that have made America the envy of the world.I have reference to the foundation of the
- Divine Origin of Rights;
- Limited Government;
- the pillars of economic Freedom and Personal Freedom,
- which result in Abundance;
- followed by Security
- and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Their efforts are futile. And, even in our country, there are those who think that, because we now have the good things in life, we can afford to dispense with the foundations which have made them possible.
They want to remove any recognition of God from governmental institutions, They want to expand the scope and reach of government which will undermine and erode our economic and personal freedoms.
The abundance which is ours, the carefree existence which we have come to accept as a matter of course, CAN BE TOPPLED BY THESE FOOLISH EXPERIMENTERS AND POWER SEEKERS.
By the grace of God, and with His help, we shall fence them off from the foundations of our liberty, and then begin our task of repair and construction.
As a conclusion to this discussion, I present a declaration of principles which have recently been prepared by a few American patriots, and to which I wholeheartedly subscribe.
Fifteen Principles Which Make For Good And Proper Government
As an Independent American for constitutional government I declare that:(1) I believe that no people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law.
(2) I believe that God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression.
(3) I believe that the Constitution of the United States was prepared and adopted by men acting under inspiration from Almighty God; that it is a solemn compact between the peoples of the States of this nation which all officers of government are under duty to obey; that the eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to or individual liberty will perish.
(4) I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:
(a) Punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;
(b) Protect the right and control of private property;
(c) Wage defensive war and provide for the nation's defense;
(d) Compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his fair share of the burden of performing the above functions.
(5) I hold that the Constitution denies government the power to take from the individual either his life, liberty, or property except in accordance with moral law; that the same moral law which governs the actions of men when acting alone is also applicable when they act in concert with others; that no citizen or group of citizens has any right to direct their agent, the government to perform any act which would be evil or offensive to the conscience if that citizen were performing the act himself outside the framework of government.
(6) I am hereby resolved that under no circumstances shall the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights be infringed. In particular I am opposed to any attempt on the part of the Federal Government to deny the people their right to bear arms, to worship and pray when and where they choose, or to own and control private property.
(7) I consider ourselves at war with international Communism which is committed to the destruction of our government, our right of property, and our freedom; that it is treason as defined by the Constitution to give aid and comfort to this implacable enemy.
(8) I am unalterable opposed to Socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right of private property for government to own or operate the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise, or to regiment owners in the legitimate use of private property.
(9) I maintain that every person who enjoys the protection of his life, liberty, and property should bear his fair share of the cost of government in providing that protection; that the elementary principles of justice set forth in the Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform and that each person's property or income be taxed at the same rate.
(10) I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a circulation medium convertible into such money without loss. I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of the Constitution for the Federal Government to make it a criminal offense to use gold or silver coin as legal tender or to use irredeemable paper money.
(11) I believe that each State is sovereign in performing those functions reserved to it by the Constitution and it is destructive of our federal system and the right of self-government guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to regulate or control the States in performing their functions or to engage in performing such functions itself.
(12) I consider it a violation of the Constitution for the Federal Government to levy taxes for the support of state or local government; that no State or local government can accept funds from the Federal and remain independent in performing its functions, nor can the citizens exercise their rights of self-government under such conditions.
(13) I deem it a violation of the right of private property guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to forcibly deprive the citizens of this nation of their nation of their property through taxation or otherwise, and make a gift thereof to foreign governments or their citizens.
(14) I believe that no treaty or agreement with other countries should deprive our citizens of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.
(15) I consider it a direct violation of the obligation imposed upon it by the Constitution for the Federal Government to dismantle or weaken our military establishment below that point required for the protection of the States against invasion, or to surrender or commit our men, arms, or money to the control of foreign ore world organizations of governments. These things I believe to be the proper role of government.
We have strayed far afield. We must return to basic concepts and principles - to eternal verities. There is no other way. The storm signals are up. They are clear and ominous.
As Americans - citizens of the greatest nation under Heaven - we face difficult days. Never since the days of the Civil War - 100 years ago - has this choice nation faced such a crisis.
In closing I wish to refer you to the words of the patriot Thomas Paine, whose writings helped so much to stir into a flaming spirit the smoldering embers of patriotism during the days of the American Revolution:
"These are the times that try mens souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial and article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." (THE POLITICAL WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, p.55.)
I intend to keep fighting. My personal attitude is one of resolution - not resignation.
I have faith in the American people. I pray that we will never do anything that will jeopardize in any manner our priceless heritage. If we live and work so as to enjoy the approbation of a Divine Providence, we cannot fail. Without that help we cannot long endure.
All Right-Thinking Americans Should Now Take Their Stand
So I urge all Americans to put their courage to the test. Be firm in
our conviction that our cause is just. Reaffirm our faith in all things
for which true Americans have always stood.
I urge all Americans to arouse themselves and stay aroused. We must
not make any further concessions to communism at home or abroad. We do
not need to. We should oppose communism from our position of strength
for we are not weak.
There is much work to be done. The time is short. Let us begin - in earnest - now and may God bless our efforts. Thank you very kindly.
The Constitution Will Be Saved-But Not In Washington
I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—men and women who will subscribe to and abide by the principles of the Constitution.
The Constitution Requires our Loyalty and Support
I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document.
To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed
his stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that
the God of heaven sent some of his choicest spirits to lay the
foundation of this government, and he has sent other choice spirits—even
you who hear my words this day—to preserve it.
We, the blessed beneficiaries, face difficult days in this beloved land,
"a land which is choice above all other lands" (Ether 2:10). It may
also cost us blood before we are through. It is my conviction, however,
that when the Lord comes, the Stars and Stripes will be floating on the
breeze over this people.
May it be so, and may God give us the faith and
the courage exhibited by those patriots who pledged their lives and
fortunes that we might be free, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
The Constitution—A Heavenly Banner
EZRA TAFT BENSONEzra Taft Benson was President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional address was given at Brigham Young University on 16 September 1986.
On the seventeenth day of September 1987, we commemorate the two-hundredth birthday of the Constitutional Convention, which gave birth to the document that Gladstone said is "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man" (William Ewart Gladstone: Life and Public Services, ed. Thomas W. Handford [Chicago: The Dominion Co., 1899], p. 323).
I heartily endorse this assessment, and today I would like to pay honor—honor to the document itself, honor to the men who framed it, and honor to the God who inspired it and made possible its coming forth.
Some Basic Principles
To understand the significance of the Constitution, we must first understand some basic, eternal principles. These principles have their beginning in the premortal councils of heaven.
The Principle of Agency
The first basic principle is agency. The central issue in the premortal council was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed him stood for the former proposition—freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter—coercion and force. The war that began in heaven over this issue is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality. And one of Lucifer's primary strategies has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments.
Look back in retrospect on almost six thousand years of human history! Freedom's moments have been infrequent and exceptional. We must appreciate that we live in one of history's most exceptional moments—in a nation and a time of unprecedented freedom. Freedom as we know it has been experienced by perhaps less than one percent of the human family.
The Proper Role of Government
The second basic principle concerns the function and proper role of government. These are the principles that, in my opinion, proclaim the proper role of government in the domestic affairs of the nation.
[I] believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them. . . .
[I] believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. . . .
[I] believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments. [D&C 134:1–2, 5] In other words, the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
The Source of Human Rights
The third important principle pertains to the source of basic human rights. Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan.
If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
People Are Superior to Governments
The fourth basic principle we must understand is that people are superior to the governments they form. Since God created people with certain inalienable rights, and they, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that the people are superior to the creature they created.
Governments Should Have Limited Powers
The fifth and final principle that is basic to our understanding of the Constitution is that governments should have only limited powers. The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess.
By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another's wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator.
The Constitution and its Coming Forth
With these basic principles firmly in mind, let us now turn to a discussion of the inspired document we call the Constitution. My purpose is not to recite the events that led to the American Revolution—we are all familiar with these. But I would say this: History is not an accident. Events are foreknown to God. His superintending influence is behind the actions of his righteous children.
Long before America was even discovered, the Lord was moving and shaping events that would lead to the coming forth of the remarkable form of government established by the Constitution. America had to be free and independent to fulfill this destiny. I commend to you as excellent reading on this subject Elder Mark E. Petersen's book The Great Prologue (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1975).
As expressed so eloquently by John Adams before the signing of the Declaration, "There's a Divinity which shapes our ends" (quoted in The Works of Daniel Webster, vol. 1 (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), p. 133).
Though mortal eyes and minds cannot fathom the end from the beginning, God does.
God Raised Up Wise Men to Create the Constitution
In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Savior declared, "I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose" (D&C 101:80). These were not ordinary men, but men chosen and held in reserve by the Lord for this very purpose.
Shortly after President Kimball became President of the Church, he assigned me to go into the vault of the St. George Temple and check the early records. As I did so, I realized the fulfillment of a dream I had had ever since learning of the visit of the Founding Fathers to the St. George Temple. I saw with my own eyes the records of the work that was done for the Founding Fathers of this great nation, beginning with George Washington. Think of it, the Founding Fathers of this nation, those great men, appeared within those sacred walls and had their vicarious work done for them.
President Wilford Woodruff spoke of it in these words:
Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, "You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God."
These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. . . .
I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men. [Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946), pp. 160–61]
These noble spirits came there with divine permission—evidence that this work of salvation goes forward on both sides of the veil.
At a later conference, in April 1898, after he became President of the Church, President Woodruff declared that "those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits . . . [and] were inspired of the Lord" (CR, April 1898, p. 89).
We honor those men today. We are the grateful beneficiaries of their noble work.
The Lord Approved the Constitution
But we honor more than those who brought forth the Constitution. We honor the Lord who revealed it. God himself has borne witness to the fact that he is pleased with the final product of the work of these great patriots.
In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith on August 6, 1833, the Savior admonished: "I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land" (D&C 98:6).
In the Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer, given on March 27, 1836, the Lord directed the Prophet Joseph to say: "May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever" (D&C 109:54).
A few years later, Joseph Smith, while unjustly incarcerated in a cold and depressing cell of Liberty Jail at Clay County, Missouri, frequently bore his testimony of the document's divinity: "The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner" (HC 3:304).
How this document accomplished all of this merits our further consideration.
The Document Itself
The Constitution consists of seven separate articles.
The first three establish the three branches of our government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The fourth article describes matters pertaining to states, most significantly the guarantee of a republican form of government to every state of the Union. Article 5 defines the amendment procedure of the document, a deliberately difficult process that should be clearly understood by every citizen. Article 6 covers several miscellaneous items, including a definition of the supreme law of the land, namely, the Constitution itself. Article 7, the last, explains how the Constitution is to be ratified.
After ratification of the document, ten amendments were added and designated as our Bill of Rights.
Now to look at some of the major provisions of the document itself. Many principles could be examined, but I mention five as being crucial to the preservation of our freedom. If we understand the workability of these, we have taken the first step in defending our freedoms.
Major Provisions of the Document
The major provisions of the Constitution are as follows.
Sovereignty of the People
First: Sovereignty lies in the people themselves. Every governmental system has a sovereign, one or several who possess all the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. That sovereign may be an individual, a group, or the people themselves.
The Founding Fathers believed in common law, which holds that true sovereignty rests with the people. Believing this to be in accord with truth, they inserted this imperative in the Declaration of Independence: "To secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Separation of Powers
Second: To safeguard these rights, the Founding Fathers provided for the separation of powers among the three branches of government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.
Each was to be independent of the other, yet each was to work in a unified relationship.
As the great constitutionalist President J. Reuben Clark noted: It is [the] union of independence and dependence of these branches—legislative, executive and judicial—and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. . . . It was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle. [Church News, November 29, 1952, p. 12] The use of checks and balances was deliberately designed, first, to make it difficult for a minority of the people to control the government, and, second, to place restraint on the government itself.
Limited Powers of Government
Third: The powers the people granted to the three branches of government were specifically limited. The Founding Fathers well understood human nature and its tendency to exercise unrighteous dominion when given authority. A constitution was therefore designed to limit government to certain enumerated functions, beyond which was tyranny.
The Principle of Representation
Fourth: Our constitutional government is based on the principle of representation. The principle of representation means that we have delegated to an elected official the power to represent us. The Constitution provides for both direct representation and indirect representation. Both forms of representation provide a tempering influence on pure democracy. The intent was to protect the individual's and the minority's rights to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labors—property. These rights were not to be subject to majority vote.
A Moral and Righteous People
Fifth: The Constitution was designed to work with only a moral and righteous people. "Our constitution," said John Adams (first vice-president and second president of the United States), "was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (John R. Howe, Jr., The Changing Political Thought of John Adams, Princeton University Press, 1966, p. 185).
The Crisis of our Constitution
This, then, is the ingenious and inspired document created by these good and wise men for the benefit and blessing of future generations. It is now two hundred years since the Constitution was written. Have we been wise beneficiaries of the gift entrusted to us? Have we valued and protected the principles laid down by this great document?
At this bicentennial celebration we must, with sadness, say that we have not been wise in keeping the trust of our Founding Fathers. For the past two centuries, those who do not prize freedom have chipped away at every major clause of our Constitution until today we face a crisis of great dimensions.
The Prophecy of Joseph Smith
We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: Even this Nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the constitution is upon the brink of ruin this people will be the Staff up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction. [In Howard and Martha Coray Notebook, July 19, 1840, quoted by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, comps. and eds., The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980), p. 416]
The Need to Prepare
Will we be prepared? Will we be among those who will "bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction"?
If we desire to be numbered among those who will, here are some things we must do:
1. We must be righteous and moral. We must live the gospel principles—all of them. We have no right to expect a higher degree of morality from those who represent us than what we ourselves are. To live a higher law means we will not seek to receive what we have not earned by our own labor. It means we will remember that government owes us nothing. It means we will keep the laws of the land. It means we will look to God as our Lawgiver and the source of our liberty.
2. We must learn the principles of theConstitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? The Church will not tell us how to do this, but we are admonished to do it. I quote Abraham Lincoln: Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation. [Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. John G. Nicolay and John Hay, vol. 1 (New York: Francis D. Tandy Co., 1905), p.43]
3. We must become involved in civic affairs. As citizens of this republic, we cannot do our duty and be idle spectators. It is vital that we follow this counsel from the Lord: "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 98:10). Note the qualities that the Lord demands in those who are to represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest. We must be concerted in our desires and efforts to see men and women represent us who possess all three of these qualities.
4. We must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, and our advice. We must be wisely informed and let others know how we feel. We must take part in local precinct meetings and select delegates who will truly represent our feelings.
I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—men and women who will subscribe to and abide by the principles of the Constitution.
The Constitution Requires our Loyalty and Support
I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document.
To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed
his stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that
the God of heaven sent some of his choicest spirits to lay the
foundation of this government, and he has sent other choice spirits—even
you who hear my words this day—to preserve it.
We, the blessed beneficiaries, face difficult days in this beloved land,
"a land which is choice above all other lands" (Ether 2:10). It may
also cost us blood before we are through. It is my conviction, however,
that when the Lord comes, the Stars and Stripes will be floating on the
breeze over this people.
May it be so, and may God give us the faith and
the courage exhibited by those patriots who pledged their lives and
fortunes that we might be free, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
©Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.Related Links:
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints
The Proper Role Of Government
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
The Muslim Brotherhood Would Slit My Throat & Not Bat an Eye: Watch Beck Interview Anti-Islamist Muslim Leftist
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 7:50pm by Tiffany Gabbay Tiffany Gabbay via The Blaze
The Pakistani-born Canadian joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday evening to discuss why Shariah law has no place in Islam, and to warn viewers about the dangers posed by the not-so-moderate Muslim Brotherhood. As a Muslim born in Karachi who viewed his share of carnage carried out in the name of Islam first hand, Fatah is stunned at how American leftists are handling themselves when it comes to supporting the enemies of goodwill.
Fatah suggested that because President Obama’s first Chief of Staff was Jewish, he might have felt the need to compensate by bringing on board Muslim radicals, including Dalia Mogahed and Anthony Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, whose entire immediate family is actively involved with Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
Fatah noted he saw “slaughters, genocide, beheadings, acid thrown on women’s faces” as a child and said that with another 12 people killed just today in his hometown of Karachi, the media is silent. “Do you think if these 50 people were killed in Gaza it wouldn’t be the first news story on CNN?” he asked incredulously.
“We are children of the lesser God?”
He complimented JFK for being clear on who the enemy is – then it was Communists today it is Islamo-Fascism.
As a Canadian, Fatah said he feels “sad for America” because even though there is a left and right in Canada, he believes there is a consensus among all that their way of life needs to be preserved. And that way of life, according to Fatah, “didn’t come from China or India.”
Universality of citizenship, he maintained, as either a Christian or Muslim, came from Europe. In terms of Obama’s stance on the Muslim Brotherhood and others, the activist noted that “we are in an era of mediocrity” and that “man can’t live by [good] speeches alone.”
Fatah also had harsh words for the Muslim Brotherhood, who he summarized as being “Jim Jones in KKK uniforms” who would “slit my throat” without even blinking an eye. Wasn’t it “the Muslim Brotherhood who beheaded Daniel pearl in Karachi?” he reminded They are not secular.
He pointed out that because he is not a white “guilt-ridden” liberal, he can see the forest for the trees. “I am a Muslim, born in Pakistan, I know crap when I see it.” I am not a white, guilt-ridden liberal.
Noting that Marxists in America have knit themselves together and are supporting the Muslim
Brotherhood, Beck asked Fatah why he believes this this happening?
“Is it just to destroy Western way of life?” Beck asked.
Fatah pointed to the collapse of the Berlin Wall as the genesis, stating that once the remains of Communism had collapsed in dust, the left was left with nothing else except to hate America. Fatah also drew scorn for Occupy Wall Street, who he said comprises “rich kids on sabbatical acting as if they are the Che Guevaras of America.”
He asked how it is logical that these leftists champion anti-black racism while supporting Islamists who are the most racist of all. He noted that by nomenclature in Arab countries blacks are typically referred to as “slaves” to this day. Yet this is who the left is defending? ”They should be ashamed,” he slammed.
Fatah also described the strong threads of racism that he has witnessed in his community throughout the years leading up to today. In terms of where we are headed, the staunch supporter of human rights said he is “terrified” because “what is there besides the United States of America?” He then compared the humanity embraced by Americans compared to that of China and Russia.
Watch this fascinating interview below:
In his book, ”The Jew Is Not My Enemy,” Fatah traces how “literature from as early as the seventh century has fueled the hatred of Jews by Muslims.” He debunks Anti-Semitic passages contained in the Hadith (Islamic religious text) dissects “Arab supremacist doctrines” as well as reinterprets verses of the Quran that have, historically, been interpreted as Anti-Semitic. The book jacket adds that in doing so, Fatah, “argues that hating Jews is against the essence of the Islamic spirit.”
The self-described leftis is also the author of “Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State,” which condemns the notion that the establishment of a Caliphate is truly a requirement of Islam. As a proponent of a progressive, liberal-form of Islam, Fatah has endured sharp criticism from within the Islamic community, as do many reformers who have spoken out against Shariah law.
Source: The Blaze
ADDITIONAL VIDEOS OF TAREK FATAH:
“The dangers we face; if we do not confront them today, our children
will not forgive us tomorrow”. Tarek Fatah delivers a passionate call
to action against injustice and violence, asking the ideacity audience
to draw the distinction between Islam as a faith and Islamism as an
ideology.~Tarek Fatah
The following is a 5 minute clip of a recent conference.
The full video is below: Tarek Fatah (Urdu: طارق فتح) (born November 20, 1949), is a Canadian political activist, writer, and broadcaster. He is the author of Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State published by John Wiley & Sons. In the book Fatah challenges the notion that the establishment of an Islamic state is a necessary prerequisite to entering the state of Islam. He suggests that the idea of an Islamic state is merely a mirage that Muslims have been made to chase for over a millennium.
Chasing a Mirage was shortlisted for the $35,000 Donner Prize for 2008–09. Fatah's second book, titled The Jew Is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism, was published by McClelland & Stewart in October 2010. The book won the 2010 Annual Helen and Stan Vine Canadian Book Award in Politics and History.
In May 2009, Fatah joined CFRB 1010. Later that fall, he joined John Moore's morning show as a contributor. Currently, he hosts "The Tarek Fatah Show" on CFRB NewsTalk 1010' on Sundays.
Fatah is the founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress. Fatah advocates gay rights, a separation of religion and state, opposition to sharia law, and advocacy for a "liberal, progressive form" of Islam. Some of his activism and statements have met with considerable criticism from Canadian Muslim groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
