12:08 PM 01/15/2014
United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy
is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China,
she says, is the best model.
China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling
with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing
it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.
“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”
Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is
“very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global
warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key
policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature
largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and
other executive offices.
..................................The Wall Street Journal notes that China’s air quality was so bad
that about “1.2 million people died prematurely in China in 2010 as a
result of air pollution” and Chinese government figures show that “lung
cancer is now the leading cause of death from malignant tumors. Many of
those dying are nonsmokers.”
The Soviet bloc’s environmental track record was similarly dismal.
The Communist Party’s National Action Plan spent $275 billion to
combat rampant pollution through 2017, including reducing particulate
matter 2.5 levels in the Beijing region by 25 percent.
You just can't make this shit up. So the UN thinks China is the model country for combating faux global warming....and the same day, an article comes out about how dangerous their air quality is.
Air pollution spikes to dangerously high levels in Beijing
Associated Press
Air pollution has reached dangerously high levels in China's capital,
where the concentration of toxic small particles registered more than
two dozen times the level considered safe.
The
density of PM2.5 particles was at about 350 to 500 micrograms per cubic
meter in the midmorning, and had reached as high as 671 at 4 a.m. at a
monitoring post at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. That is about 26 times
as high as the 25 micrograms considered safe by the World Health
Organization.
Serious air pollution plagues most
major Chinese cities, where environmental protection has been long
sacrificed for the sake of economic development. In recent years, China
has beefed up regulations to fight pollution.
Beijing authorities say the severe pollution is likely to continue through Friday.
Former Britain Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dies after suffering stroke
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has died after suffering a stroke.
"It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that
their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this
morning,” Thatcher spokesperson Lord Bell said in a statement.
Thatcher, an outspoken woman known to many as "The Iron Lady," was
87. She led Britain's Conservatives to three election victories from
1979 to 1990, the longest continuous period in office by a British prime
minister since the early 19th century. Alongside former U.S. President
Ronald Reagan, Thatcher battled against communism and saw the Berlin
Wall get torn down in 1989.
On Monday, British Prime Minister David Cameron cut short his trip to
several European countries after the announcement of Thatcher's death.
"We have lost a great leader, a great prime minister and a great Briton,'' Cameron said in a statement.
Buckingham Palace said Queen Elizabeth was sad to hear the news of
Thatcher's passing, adding that she would be sending a private message
of sympathy to the family today.
During 11 bruising years as prime minister, Thatcher transformed her
country by a ruthless dedication to free markets and infuriated European
allies. She transferred large chunks of the economy from the state
hands to private ownership.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," she once said, according to Reuters.
Thatcher retired from public engagements in 2002 following a series
of small strokes, and was only occasionally seen in public since then.
To her fervent admirers, battling Maggie was an icon, a national
savior who ended Britain's post-World War II cycle of confrontation and
decline -- eclipsed as a 20th-century British leader only by Winston
Churchill.
Her vehement critics, however, saw her as a bellicose figure at home
and abroad, a destroyer of industries and, with it, a way of life.
She was a sharply divisive figure even within her Conservative Party,
especially on the issue of European integration; the party declined
into a bickering shambles after she fell from power.
Between 1979 and 1990, her governments sold a string of nationalized
industries into private ownership, crushed the once-mighty labor unions,
defeated Argentina in the Falkland Islands war and preached military
readiness to the Western alliance.
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.
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)
"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.
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.
"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)
By comparison, America traditionally has followed Jefferson's advice
of relying on individual action and charity. The result is that the
United States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any
other country in the entire world or throughout all history. Even during
the depression of the 1930's, Americans ate and lived better than most
people in other countries do today.
What Is Wrong With A "Little" Socialism?
In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so
long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like
fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all
right, too!
History proves that the growth of the welfare state is
difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship.
But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not
then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably
within our lifetime.
Three Reasons American Need Not Fall For Socialist Deceptions
Three factors may make a difference:
First, there is sufficient
historical knowledge of the failures of socialism and of the past
mistakes of previous civilizations.
Secondly, there are modern means of
rapid communications to transmit these lessons of history to a large
literate population.
And thirdly, there is a growing number of dedicated
men and women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to
promote a wider appreciation of these concepts.
The timely joining together of these
three factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.
How Can Present Socialistic Trends Be Reversed?
This brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the
various welfare-state features of our government which have already
fastened themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic?
Isn't
drastic surgery already necessary, and can it be performed without
endangering the patient? In answer, it is obvious that drastic measures
ARE called for. No half-way or compromise actions will suffice. Like all
surgery, it will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar
tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to
be saved, and it can be done without undue risk.
Obviously, not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be
dropped simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social
upheaval. To try to do so would be like finding oneself at the controls
of a hijacked airplane and attempting to return it by simply cutting off
the engines in flight. It must be flown back, flown back, lowered in
altitude, gradually reduced in speed and brought in for a smooth
landing.
Translated into practical terms, this means:
that the first step
toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze
all welfare-state programs at their present level, making sure that no
new ones are added.
The next step would be to allow all present programs
to run out their term with absolutely no renewal.
The third step would
involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite
in their term.
In my opinion, the bulk of the transition could be
accomplished within a ten-year period and virtually completed within
twenty years. Congress would serve as the initiator of this phase-out
program, and the President would act as the executive in accordance with
traditional constitutional procedures.
Summary Thus Far:
As I summarize what I have attempted to cover, try to visualize the
structural relationship between the six vital concepts that have made
America the envy of the world.
I have reference to the foundation of the
Divine Origin of Rights;
Limited Government;
the pillars of economic
Freedom and Personal Freedom,
which result in Abundance;
followed by
Security
and the Pursuit of Happiness.
America was built upon a firm foundation and created over many years
from the bottom up. Other nations, impatient to acquire equal abundance,
security and pursuit of happiness, rush headlong into that
final phase of construction without building adequate foundations or
supporting pillars.
Their efforts are futile. And, even in our country,
there are those who think that, because we now have the good things in
life, we can afford to dispense with the foundations which have made
them possible.
They want to remove any recognition of God from
governmental institutions, They want to expand the scope and reach of
government which will undermine and erode our economic and personal
freedoms.
The abundance which is ours, the carefree existence which we
have come to accept as a matter of course, CAN BE TOPPLED BY THESE
FOOLISH EXPERIMENTERS AND POWER SEEKERS.
By the grace of God, and with
His help, we shall fence them off from the foundations of our liberty,
and then begin our task of repair and construction.
As a conclusion to this discussion, I present a declaration of
principles which have recently been prepared by a few American patriots,
and to which I wholeheartedly subscribe.
Fifteen Principles Which Make For Good And Proper Government
As an Independent American for constitutional government I declare that:
(1) I believe that no people can maintain freedom unless their
political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the
existence of moral law.
(2) I believe that God has endowed men with certain unalienable
rights as set forth in the Declaration of
Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however great, may
morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government is
to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is
usurpation and oppression.
(3) I believe that the Constitution of the United States was prepared
and adopted by men acting under inspiration from Almighty God; that it
is a solemn compact between the peoples of the States of this nation
which all officers of government are under duty to obey; that the
eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to or individual
liberty will perish.
(4) I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to
deprive the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for
these purposes:
(a) Punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;
(b) Protect the right and control of private property;
(c) Wage defensive war and provide for the nation's defense;
(d) Compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear
his fair share of the burden of performing the above functions.
(5) I hold that the Constitution denies government the power to take
from the individual either his life, liberty, or property except in
accordance with moral law; that the same moral law which governs the
actions of men when acting alone is also applicable when they act in
concert with others; that no citizen or group of citizens has any right
to direct their agent, the government to perform any act which would be
evil or offensive to the conscience if that citizen were performing the
act himself outside the framework of government.
(6) I am hereby resolved that under no circumstances shall the
freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights be infringed. In particular I
am opposed to any attempt on the part of the Federal Government to deny
the people their right to bear arms, to worship and pray when and where
they choose, or to own and control private property.
(7) I consider ourselves at war with international Communism which is
committed to the destruction of our government, our right of property,
and our freedom; that it is treason as defined by the Constitution to
give aid and comfort to this implacable enemy.
(8) I am unalterable opposed to Socialism, either in whole or in
part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a
denial of the right of private property for government to own or operate
the means of producing and distributing goods and services in
competition with private enterprise, or to regiment owners in the
legitimate use of private property.
(9) I maintain that every person who enjoys the protection of his
life, liberty, and property should bear his fair share of the cost of
government in providing that protection; that the elementary principles of justice set forth in the
Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform and that each
person's property or income be taxed at the same rate.
(10) I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the
Constitution, and a circulation medium convertible into such money
without loss. I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit
provisions of the Constitution for the Federal Government to make it a
criminal offense to use gold or silver coin as legal tender or to use
irredeemable paper money.
(11) I believe that each State is sovereign in performing those
functions reserved to it by the Constitution and it is destructive of
our federal system and the right of self-government guaranteed under the
Constitution for the Federal Government to regulate or control the
States in performing their functions or to engage in performing such
functions itself.
(12) I consider it a violation of the Constitution for the Federal
Government to levy taxes for the support of state or local government;
that no State or local government can accept funds from the Federal and
remain independent in performing its functions, nor can the citizens
exercise their rights of self-government under such conditions.
(13) I deem it a violation of the right of private property
guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to forcibly
deprive the citizens of this nation of their 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.
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 BENSON Ezra 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.
The first duty of any Government is to safeguard its people against external aggression. To guarantee the survival of our way of life.
The question we must now ask ourselves is whether the present Government is fulfilling that duty. It is dismantling our defenses at a moment when the strategic threat to Britain and her allies from an expansionist power is graver than at any moment since the end of the last war.
Military men are always warning us that the strategic balance is tilting against NATO and the west.
But the Socialists never listen.[fo 1]Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 2200 19 January 1976
They don't seem to realise that the submarines and missiles that the Russians are building could be destined to be used against us.
Perhaps some people in the Labour Party think we are on the same side as the Russians! But just let's look at what the Russians are doing.
She's ruled by a dictatorship of patient, far-sighted determined men who are rapidly making their country the foremost naval and military power in the world. End of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 2200 19 January 1976.
They are not doing this solely for the sake of self-defence.[fo 2]
A huge, largely land-locked country like Russia does not need to build the most powerful navy in the world just to guard its own frontiers.
No. The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen.
The men in the Soviet politburo don't have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns.
They know that they are a super power in only one sense—the military sense.[fo 3] They are a failure in human and economic terms.
But let us make no mistake. The Russians calculate that their military strength will more than make up for their economic and social weakness. They are determined to use it in order to get what they want from us.
Last year on the eve of the Helsinki Conference, I warned that the Soviet Union is spending 20 per cent more each year than the United States on military research and development. 25 per cent more on weapons and equipment. 60 per cent more on strategic nuclear forces.
In the past ten years Russia has spent 50 per cent more than the United States on naval shipbuilding.
Some military experts believe that Russia has already achieved strategic superiority over America.[fo 4]
But it is the balance of conventional forces which poses the most immediate dangers for NATO.
I am going to visit our troops in Germany on Thursday. I am going at a moment when the Warsaw Pact forces—that is, the forces of Russia and her allies—in Central Europe outnumber NATOs by 150,000 men nearly 10,000 tanks and 2,600 aircraft. We cannot afford to let that gap get bigger.
Still more serious gaps have opened up elsewhere—especially in the troubled area of Southern Europe and the Mediterranean.
The rise of Russia as a world-wide naval power, threatens our oil rigs and our traditional life-lines, the sea routes.[fo 5]
Over the past ten years, the Russians have quadrupled their force of nuclear submarines. They are now building one nuclear submarine a month.
They are searching for new naval base facilities all over the world, while we are giving up our few remaining bases.
They have moved into the Indian Ocean. They pose a rising threat to our northern waters and, farther east to Japan's vital sea routes.
The Soviet navy is not designed for self-defence. We do not have to imagine an all-out nuclear war or even a conventional war in order to see how it could be used for political purposes.[fo 6]
I would be the first to welcome any evidence that the Russians are ready to enter into a genuine detente. But I am afraid that the evidence points the other way.
I warned before Helsinki of the dangers of falling for an illusory detente. Some people were sceptical at the time, but we now see that my warning was fully justified.
Has detente induced the Russians to cut back on their defence programme?
Has it dissuaded them from brazen intervention in Angola?
Has it led to any improvement in the conditions of Soviet citizens, or the subject populations of Eastern Europe?[fo 7]
We know the answers.
At Helsinki we endorsed the status quo in Eastern Europe. In return we had hoped for the freer movement of people and ideas across the Iron Curtain. So far we have got nothing of substance.
We are devoted, as we always have been, to the maintenance of peace.
We will welcome any initiative from the Soviet Union that would contribute to that goal.
But we must also heed the warnings of those, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn , who remind us that we have been fighting a kind of ‘Third World War’ over the entire period since 1945—and that we have been steadily losing ground.[fo 8]
As we look back over the battles of the past year, over the list of countries that have been lost to freedom or are imperilled by Soviet expansion can we deny that Solzhenitsyn is right?
We have seen Vietnam and all of Indochina swallowed up by Communist aggression. We have seen the Communists make an open grab for power in Portugal, our oldest ally—a sign that many of the battles in the Third World War are being fought inside Western countries.
And now the Soviet Union and its satellites are pouring money, arms and front-line troops into Angola in the hope of dragging it into the Communist bloc.[fo 9]
We must remember that there are no Queensbury rules in the contest that is now going on. And the Russians are playing to win.
They have one great advantage over us—the battles are being fought on our territory, not theirs.
Within a week of the Helsinki conference, Mr Zarodov , a leading Soviet ideologue, was writing in Pravda about the need for the Communist Parties of Western Europe to forget about tactical compromises with Social Democrats, and take the offensive in order to bring about proletarian revolution.[fo 10]
Later Mr Brezhnev made a statement in which he gave this article his personal endorsement. If this is the line that the Soviet leadership adopts at its Party Congress next month, then we must heed their warning. It undoubtedly applies to us too.
We in Britain cannot opt out of the world.
If we cannot understand why the Russians are rapidly becoming the greatest naval and military power the world has ever seen if we cannot draw the lesson of what they tried to do in Portugal and are now trying to do in Angola then we are destined—in their words—to end up on ‘the scrap heap of history’.[fo 11]
We look to our alliance with American and NATO as the main guarantee of our own security and, in the world beyond Europe, the United States is still the prime champion of freedom.
But we are all aware of how the bitter experience of Vietnam has changed the public mood in America. We are also aware of the circumstances that inhibit action by an American president in an election year.
So it is more vital then ever that each and every one of us within NATO should contribute his proper share to the defence of freedom.[fo 12]
Britain, with her world-wide experience of diplomacy and defence, has a special role to play. We in the Conservative Party are determined that Britain should fulfil that role. Beginning of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 0700 20 January 1976
We're not harking back to some nostalgic illusion about Britain's role in the past.
We're saying—Britain has a part to play now, a part to play for the future.
The advance of Communist power threatens our whole way of life. That advance is not irreversible, providing that we take the necessary measures now. But the longer that we go on running down our means of survival, the harder it will be to catch up.[fo 13]
In other words: the longer Labour remains in Government, the more vulnerable this country will be. (Applause.) End of section checked against BBC Radio News Report 0700 20 January 1976
What has this Government been doing with our defences?
Under the last defence review, the Government said it would cut defence spending by £4,700 million over the next nine years.
Then they said they would cut a further £110 million.
It now seems that we will see further cuts.[fo 14]
If there are further cuts, perhaps the [ Roy Mason ] Defence Secretary should change his title, for the sake of accuracy, to the Secretary for Insecurity.
On defence, we are now spending less per head of the population than any of our major allies. Britain spends only £90 per head on defence. West Germany spends £130, France spends £115.
The United States spends £215. Even neutral Sweden spends £60 more per head than we do. Of course, we are poorer than most of our NATO allies. This is part of the disastrous economic legacy of Socialism.[fo 15]
But let us be clear about one thing.
This is not a moment when anyone with the interests of this country at heart should be talking about cutting our defences.
It is a time when we urgently need to strengthen our defences.
Of course this places a burden on us. But it is one that we must be willing to bear if we want our freedom to survive.
Throughout our history, we have carried the torch for freedom. Now, as I travel the world, I find people asking again and again, "What has happened to Britain?" They want to know why we are hiding our heads in the sand, why with all our experience, we are not giving a lead.[fo 16]
Many people may not be aware, even now, of the full extent of the threat.
We expect our Governments to take a more far-sighted view.
To give them their due, the Government spelled out the extent of the peril in their Defence White Paper last year, But, having done so, they drew the absurd conclusion that our defence efforts should be reduced.
The Socialists, in fact, seem to regard defence as almost infinitely cuttable. They are much more cautious when it comes to cutting other types of public expenditure.[fo 17]
They seem to think that we can afford to go deeper into debt so that the Government can prop up a loss-making company. And waste our money on the profligate extension of nationalisation and measures such as the Community Land Act.
Apparently, we can even afford to lend money to the Russians, at a lower rate of interest that we have to pay on our own borrowings.
But we cannot afford, in Labour's view, to maintain our defences at the necessary level—not even at a time when on top of our NATO commitments, we are fighting a major internal war against terrorism in Northern Ireland, and need more troops in order to win it.[fo 18]
There are crises farther from home that could affect us deeply. Angola is the most immediate. In Angola, the Soviet-backed guerrilla movement, the MPLA, is making rapid headway in its current offensive, despite the fact that it controls only a third of the population, and is supported by even less.
The MPLA is gaining ground because the Soviet Union and its satellites are pouring money, guns and front-line troops into the battle.
Six thousand Cuban regular soldiers are still there.[fo 19]
But it is obvious that an acceptable solution for Angola is only possible if all outside powers withdraw their military support.
You might well ask: why on earth should we think twice about what is happening in a far-away place like Angola?
There are four important reasons.
The first is that Angola occupies a vital strategic position. If the pro-Soviet faction wins, one of the immediate consequences will almost certainly be the setting up of Soviet air and naval bases on the South Atlantic.[fo 20]
The second reason is that the presence of Communist forces in this area will make it much more difficult to settle the Rhodesian problem and achieve an understanding between South Africa and black Africa.
The third reason is even more far-reaching.
If the Russians have their way in Angola, they may well conclude that they can repeat the performance elsewhere. Similarly, uncommitted nations would be left to conclude that NATO is a spent force and that their best policy is to pursue an accommodation with Russia.[fo 21]
Fourthly, what the Russians are doing in Angola is against detente.
They seem to believe that their intervention is consistent with detente.
Indeed, Izvestiya recently argued that Soviet support for the Communist MPLA is "an investment in detente"—which gives us a good idea of what they really mean by the word. We should make it plain to the Russians that we do not believe that what they are doing in Angola is consistent with detente.[fo 22]
It is usually said that NATO policy ends in North Africa at the Tropic of Cancer. But the situation in Angola brings home the fact that NATOs supplyl ines need to be protected much further south.
In the Conservative Party we believe that our foreign policy should continue to be based on a close understanding with our traditional ally, America.
This is part of our Anglo-Saxon tradition as well as part of our NATO commitment, and it adds to our contribution to the European Community.[fo 23]
Our Anglo-Saxon heritage embraces the countries of the Old Commonwealth that have too often been neglected by politicians in this country, but are always close to the hearts of British people. We believe that we should build on our traditional bonds with Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as on our new ties with Europe.
I am delighted to see that the Australians and the New Zealanders have concluded—as I believe that most people in this country are coming to conclude—that Socialism has failed.[fo 24]
In their two electoral avalanches at the end of last year, they brought back Governments committed to freedom of choice, governments that will roll back the frontiers of state intervention in the economy and will restore incentives for people to work and save.
Our congratulations go to Mr Fraser and Mr Muldoon .
I know that our countries will be able to learn from each other.[fo 25]
What has happened in Australasia is part of a wider reawakening to the need to provide a more positive defence of the values and traditions on which Western civilisation, and prosperity, are based.
We stand with that select body of nations that believe in democracy and social and economic freedom.
Part of Britain's world role should be to provide, through its spokesmen, a reasoned and vigorous defence of the Western concept of rights and liberties: The kind that America's Ambassador to the UN, Mr Moynihan , has recently provided in his powerfully argued speeches.[fo 26]
But our role reaches beyond this. We have abundant experience and expertise in this country in the art of diplomacy in its broadest sense.
It should be used, within Europe, in the efforts to achieve effective foreign policy initiatives. Within the EEC, the interests of individual nations are not identical and our separate identities must be seen as a strength rather than a weakness.
Any steps towards closer European union must be carefully considered.[fo 27]
We are committed to direct elections within the Community, but the timing needs to be carefully calculated.
But new problems are looming up.
Among them is the possibility that the Communists will come to power through a coalition in Italy. This is a good reason why we should aim for closer links between those political groups in the European Parliament that reject Socialism.[fo 28]
We have a difficult year ahead in 1976.
I hope it will not result in a further decline of Western power and influence of the kind that we saw in 1975.
It is clear that internal violence—and above all political terrorism—will continue to pose a major challenge to all Western societies, and that it may be exploited as an instrument by the Communists.[fo 29]
We should seek close co-ordination between the police and security services of the Community, and of Nato, in the battle against terrorism.
The way that our own police have coped with recent terrorist incidents provides a splendid model for other forces.
The message of the Conservative Party is that Britain has an important role to play on the world stage. It is based on the remarkable qualities of the British people. Labour has neglected that role. MT apparently omitted the following passage in delivery. She noted, "If short of time go to top of page 32 (We are often told)." Pages 29–31 of the text are clipped together.[fo 30]
Our capacity to play a constructive role in world affairs is of course related to our economic and military strength.
Socialism has weakened us on both counts. This puts at risk not just our chance to play a useful role in the councils of the world, but the Survival of our way of life.
Caught up in the problems and hardships that Socialism has brought to Britain, we are sometimes in danger of failing to see the vast transformations taking place in the world that dwarf our own problems, great though they are.[fo 31]
But we have to wake up to those developments, and find the political will to respond to them. Soviet military power will not disappear just because we refuse to look at it.
And we must assume that it is there to be used—as threat or as force—unless we maintain the necessary deterrents.
We are under no illusions about the limits of British influence. End of passage probably omitted in delivery.[fo 32]
We are often told how this country that once ruled a quarter of the world is today just a group of offshore islands.
Well, we in the Conservative Party believe that Britain is still great.
The decline of our relative power in the world was partly inevitable—with the rise of the super powers with their vast reserves of manpower and resources.[fo 33]
But it was partly avoidable too—the result of our economic decline accelerated by Socialism. We must reverse that decline when we are returned to Government.
In the meantime, the Conservative Party has the vital task of shaking the British public out of a long sleep.[fo 34]
Sedatives have been prescribed by people, in and out of Government, telling us that there is no external threat to Britain, that all is sweetness and light in Moscow, and that a squadron of fighter planes or a company of marine commandos is less important than some new subsidy.
The Conservative Party must now sound the warning.
There are moments in our history when we have to make a fundamental choice.[fo 35]
This is one such moment—a moment when our choice will determine the life or death of our kind of society,—and the future of our children.
Let's ensure that our children will have cause to rejoice that we did not forsake their freedom.
"This blog or any content... on my facebook site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit. This blog does not always agree with certain personal views of the published authors, but I will overlook such views many times in order to gain knowledge from the more important subject matter of the article/op-ed."
